RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Arkansas just passed the same law, surely the home of the Clintons can't be bigots. Its not even been passed and it wont even be the fucking same...... How many more times ? It was passed, but the governor has refused to sign it with its current wording. Governor Hutchinson has said all along that he would sign a bill that was worded the same as the Federal law. What the state legislature passed was more in line with Indiana's law instead.

Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:21:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: religions normally manage somehow not to take too much notice of the bits in their sacred texts that offend majorities, or the powerful, in any given society. That's often true for biblical teachings about money: 4 Maccabees 2:8 Thus, as soon as one adopts a way of life in accordance with the law, even though a lover of money, one is forced to act contrary to natural ways and to lend without interest to the needy and to cancel the debt when the seventh year arrives. Luke 6:34-35a And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Oh, forget about money, DC. No fine and upstanding Western Christian gives a flying toss about whatever injunctions the Bible has against the rich. Whichever writer ever wrote such things in the Bible, even if it was Jesus himself, was probably just having an off-day or had been indoctrinated by goddamned commie libtard Marxist mofos who'd travelled back in time in a Tardis. On the other hand, whatever some bearded swivel-eyed looney said in passing in the Old Testament, no matter how cryptic and oddly-phrased it might appear to the uneducated like me, about gays - that clearly and for all time means 'Gays are awful people - God absolutely wants you to give them a shitty time at every opportunity'.

Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Arkansas just passed the same law, surely the home of the Clintons can't be bigots. Its not even been passed and it wont even be the fucking same...... How many more times ? It was passed, but the governor has refused to sign it with its current wording. Governor Hutchinson has said all along that he would sign a bill that was worded the same as the Federal law. What the state legislature passed was more in line with Indiana's law instead. Just a technical point, but surely it isnt passed, or at least not law, until it is signed off ?

JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Arkansas just passed the same law, surely the home of the Clintons can't be bigots. Its not even been passed and it wont even be the fucking same...... How many more times ? It was passed, but the governor has refused to sign it with its current wording. Governor Hutchinson has said all along that he would sign a bill that was worded the same as the Federal law. What the state legislature passed was more in line with Indiana's law instead. Just a technical point, but surely it isnt passed, or at least not law, until it is signed off ? Actually, that depends on state law. Florida's RFPA is law, though never signed by then-governor Lawton Chiles. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/mar/31/jeb-bush/does-florida-have-religious-freedom-restoration-ac/

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 4:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef Fucking priceless. Too cheap to reserve your company's name with a domain registrar? This is what happens. http://www.memoriespizza.com/ That is soooo fucking funny. Cheap putz.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u They were asked to make a wedding cake.......for a gay wedding ,not participate nor condone the actual ceremony. You do realize the cake comes out at the reception,no ? Not as if the cake is part of the wedding ceremony that they claim is sacrosanct. And you do understand that it doesn't matter when the cake comes out? It is a wedding cake...done in celebration of a gay wedding...And by making the cake, the baker has provided something for...thereby participated in...an event that his religious belief says is wrong. They're not claiming the ceremony is sacrosanct...they're claiming MARRIAGE is. But you knew that...didn't you? So your position is that not only does the cake maker not want to bake the cake.....he would prefer they had no opportunity to wed at all. So in your view it's a bit more than not wanting to be involved,it's a backlash against the progress the LGBT community has made. Good to know. First, it's not my opinion...it's What many Christians believe. I'm a Christian. I'm one of those Christians who doesn't care whether or not he marries he or she marries she. I see a whole lot of other things...in my mind...that Christians should be more concerned about. I also see a lot of other things more important than forcing someone who does not believe the same as you do to give up their beliefs to suit yours. That's not tolerance of differing beliefs, that's tyranny.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:27:02 PM)
Where we differ is when you state "give up their beliefs" I don't see where baking a cake makes them party to or condoning the ceremony. It's baking a fucking cake it's not performing the ceremony. They aren't being asked to deny the existence of their god,his son or the holy ghost....they are being asked to bake a cake.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: And you do understand that it doesn't matter when the cake comes out? It is a wedding cake...done in celebration of a gay wedding...And by making the cake, the baker has provided something for...thereby participated in...an event that his religious belief says is wrong. They're not claiming the ceremony is sacrosanct...they're claiming MARRIAGE is. I wonder if they do cakes for divorced folks embarking on second marriages. Or couples marrying in secular rather than religious settings. I have no idea. If their religion forbids second marriages (please tell us what religion that is) or secular ceremonies (please tell me what religion that is), then I would imagine they do. If the tenets of their particular religion forbid these two examples and they choose to go ahead and ignore them, then they are hypocrites. But that's for them to explain...not me.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam. Actually that's total bullshit. I have been in many bars that didn't allow straight men in. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam. Actually that's total bullshit. I have been in many bars that didn't allow straight men in. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do they have a cocksucking cover or what ? I mean how do they determine straightness ? What is their bi policy ?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The belief that one person's custom is as good as another in a free society, maybe? But it's hardly just about 'beliefs'. The phrase that Oneechan used, and what I was arguing against, was 'forced against their will' - this being implicitly the opposite to 'free'. I'm assuming that potential customers will be forced against their will to go to other shops. How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? In this case 'forced by their own beliefs' implies 'forced to believe that they, as gays, are as valuable and worthy of respect, as heterosexuals'. Well, put it this way: If I were gay, I'd feel affronted. It wouldn't make it any less insulting - in fact, if anything, it'd be worse - if the person giving the insult were to say, 'It's nothing personal, it's my religion'. Are you at all overweight, CD? I have no idea. But if so, how would you feel if a shopkeeper were to say to you, 'I'm sorry, my religion doesn't approve of gluttony. You're clearly a fatty, so you'll have to shop elsewhere. No offence.' (I mean, it's as clear as frigging day that the Bible doesn't approve of gluttony. Much clearer, in fact, than that it doesn't approve of homosexuality. So, in theory, this could actually happen, given a certain sort of Christian - though we all know that it won't - because religions normally manage somehow not to take too much notice of the bits in their sacred texts that offend majorities, or the powerful, in any given society. They're agreeably elastic in that way.) Me, in that position, I'd feel like saying, 'No offence taken. Unfortunately, my religion requires me to give you a punch in the face because it says that you're an arse. No offence meant.' See...in that position, I'd say "Fine ...I'll just ease on down the road to the next one". I don't see the need for violence because the truth of who and what I am doesn't conform to their beliefs. And in all honesty, I'd have at least a little respect for them being willing to follow through on their beliefs. I'd question their business sense...But not their beliefs.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam. Actually that's total bullshit. I have been in many bars that didn't allow straight men in. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do they have a cocksucking cover or what ? I mean how do they determine straightness ? What is their bi policy ? If you have a problem with gays, just say so. Don't hide behind juvenile cocksucking jokes. But to answer your second question, it's pretty much a no brainer when the two guys who came in are checking out the chicks and not each other. They rarely made it to the bar before being shown the door.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:43:41 PM)
If I have a problem with gays ? You are the one that suggests they have their bars in which they practice discrimination. I won't bother answering your question,it has no validity at all

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam. Because I'm not a hypocrite because you say I am? I've noticed one thing with you P.S....everyone whose views differ from yours is, in your eyes, a hypocrite. That means that no matter WHAT I say...unless it lines up with your way of thinking...I'm going to be wrong. Sorry, I'd rather argue with Lucy or peon or even mike who at least come back with questions or statements from their POV without name-calling every time they do.

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:44:30 PM)
quote: If their religion forbids second marriages (please tell us what religion that is) or secular ceremonies (please tell me what religion that is), then I would imagine they do. Jesus was pretty clear about this: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery" (Mt 19:9). As for denominational rules, I can only speak to Catholicism, the world's largest Christian sect. It forbids both remarriage after divorce and secular weddings. quote: If the tenets of their particular religion forbid these two examples and they choose to go ahead and ignore them, then they are hypocrites. But that's for them to explain...not me. Of course. I was just thinking aloud about how merchants' Bible-based policies on serving engaged couples sometimes seem a bit, well, flexible.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:45:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant How about "forced by their own beliefs and the beliefs of the shop owner" to go elsewhere? How about you stop being a fucking hypocrite and just admit it is discrimination. The difference being a gay person wouldnt refuse to serve someone for being straight. Frankly I would refuse to serve you for being an arsehole. One point that stands out to me on this thread, is all of you tossers claiming to support "religious freedom" show very fucking little of it in your posts regards Islam. Actually that's total bullshit. I have been in many bars that didn't allow straight men in. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do they have a cocksucking cover or what ? I mean how do they determine straightness ? What is their bi policy ? and then there are these tolerant folks who not only won't allow men, they don't want transgendered women either. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/michfest-michigan-womyns-festival-trans_n_5630726.html seems like you can find hate on both sides if you look.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Where we differ is when you state "give up their beliefs" I don't see where baking a cake makes them party to or condoning the ceremony. It's baking a fucking cake it's not performing the ceremony. They aren't being asked to deny the existence of their god,his son or the holy ghost....they are being asked to bake a cake. No...they're being asked to give up their belief that in God's eyes...And the eyes of their church...that gay marriage is wrong. That means anything symbolic of the ceremony is a part of the ceremony...a ceremony they view as wrong.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:51:58 PM)
Guess just about anyone can be a prick [8\|]

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/1/2015 5:56:02 PM)
quote: seems like you can find hate on both sides if you look. What are the "sides" on this topic?

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875