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

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 6:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Try me, bozo. Spell it out. Let's see what you've got. I have already tried to educate you, not once not twice but over and over. You either dont get it or dont want to get it, either way you are arguing that a word, with meaning, has no meaning. Read the top line of the link and educate yourself. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/homophobia/ Again you trot out a single source... Homophobia includes hatred or fear of homosexuality. It is also defined as a desire or attempt to discriminate homosexuals. But it also includes mere dislike, aversion, prejudice without discrimination, or see here for a full list. If it "can" mean any of a basket of things, how is anyone to judge whether or not it actually applies in a given instance? Or is the point to make it apply in any instance where somebody decides they want to use it? Nor is there any comparison to the word "marriage," which has had a stable definition in the United States for centuries. Or is the point to make it apply in any instance where somebody decides they want to use it? And just to be clear, my views on the subject have focused on the degree to which argument over the word marriage has in my opinion delayed gay rights, see here for example. Frankly, I think that holds true for both words. Because people who have not a shred of ill-will toward gays, and who supported legal recognition of gay unions with full rights a decade ago, have seen their views branded as hatred, fear, and prejudice (i.e., "homophobic") for the sole cause of their desire to preserve the cultural definition of marriage. Really? And if you don't mind me responding to two posts in one... quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Read the following for the correct use of the word "homophobic" I am sure those who say there is no such thing as gay hatred when talking about homophobia will have a fit. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4106986/mpage_1/key_homophobic/tm.htm# Well thanks, because I'm using the word there in the context of what I would judge to be a true phobia. My objection remains the way the word has been indiscriminately bandied as an accusation of hatred and intolerance when not everyone who ends up being beaten over the head with a charge of "homophobia" hates or fears gays or wishes them harm. K.

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 7:13:57 AM)
quote: My objection remains the way the word has been indiscriminately bandied as an accusation of hatred and intolerance when not everyone who ends up being beaten over the head with a charge of "homophobia" hates or fears gays or wishes them harm. I would say actions are more important than definitions... Those that support a law that not only allows but encourages discrimination by sexual orientation can only be described as having an intense or passionate disliking of a group of people... the very definition of hate in my book...Otherwise why support this law knowing the results that could ensue unless you believe taking away rights and liberties from your fellow citizens is justified by their lifestyle?... Just hope these holier than thou morality judges don't turn their attention to our lifestyle. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 7:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And what did Jesus do with the whore? She wasnt stoned, she wasnt read the riot act. did he condone or accept her behavior? What are you conflating in your cornflakes? He condemned it. Go forth and sin no more. He wanted her to stop. BFD. He said that to all assembled.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 8:26:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: My objection remains the way the word has been indiscriminately bandied as an accusation of hatred and intolerance when not everyone who ends up being beaten over the head with a charge of "homophobia" hates or fears gays or wishes them harm. I would say actions are more important than definitions... Those that support a law that not only allows but encourages discrimination by sexual orientation can only be described as having an intense or passionate disliking of a group of people... the very definition of hate in my book...Otherwise why support this law knowing the results that could ensue unless you believe taking away rights and liberties from your fellow citizens is justified by their lifestyle?... Just hope these holier than thou morality judges don't turn their attention to our lifestyle. Butch Or perhaps...other morality judges? Such as a liberal feminist: http://liberalfeministtropes.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-im-against-bdsm-radical-feminist.html?m=1 Or those who label us as sociopaths: https://bandanablog.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/stop-enabling-sociopathic-abusers-your-kinks-are-not-bdsm/ Or a concerned male: https://www.lifesitenews.com/static/to-the-christians-who-think-50-shades-is-all-sorts-of-awesome-please-stop-a.html And one more...a group this time: Feminist opposition to BDSM and sadomasochismEdit A number of radical feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin and Susan Griffin, regard BDSM as a form of woman-hating violence,[51][52] The book Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis includes essays and interviews from numerous feminists who criticize sadomasochism, including Alice Walker, Robin Morgan, Kathleen Barry, Diana E. H. Russell, Susan Star, Ti-Grace Atkinson, John Stoltenberg, Sarah Hoagland, Susan Griffin, Cerridwen Fallingstar, Audre Lorde, and Judith Butler. Feminist organizations that publicly opposed S/M/ include Lavender Menace, the New York Radical Feminists (NYRF), Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media. In 1982, a leaflet was produced by the "Coalition for a Feminist Sexuality and Against Sadomasochism", an ad-hoc coalition put together by Women Against Pornography to protest the Barnard Conference. The NYRF's NYRF was listed among the signatories to the leaflet. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_sexuality Call me crazy...but every one of those pieces sounds a lot more hateful than a baker saying "I don't believe in gay marriage...I won't bake you a cake". This whole idea that refusal to do something for someone constitutes the same level of hate as going out and murdering someone...such as those assholes did to Matthew Shepard... is nonsense.

Aylee -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 8:33:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And what did Jesus do with the whore? She wasnt stoned, she wasnt read the riot act. did he condone or accept her behavior? What are you conflating in your cornflakes? He condemned it. Go forth and sin no more. He wanted her to stop. BFD. He said that to all assembled. The men had wandered away by that point. I always took it as a "ya gotta do what you gotta do," kind of story. I mean, what kind of options, other than prostitution, did this woman have for taking care of herself and possibly some other people? It was not like she could join the typing pool or take a job at Micky Dees. That is one of the reasons that I have always felt Delilah got a bad rap. The poor woman had the Stasi at her door, repeatedly. What was she SUPPOSED to do?

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 9:27:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And what did Jesus do with the whore? She wasnt stoned, she wasnt read the riot act. did he condone or accept her behavior? What are you conflating in your cornflakes? He condemned it. Go forth and sin no more. He wanted her to stop. BFD. He said that to all assembled. The men had wandered away by that point. I always took it as a "ya gotta do what you gotta do," kind of story. I mean, what kind of options, other than prostitution, did this woman have for taking care of herself and possibly some other people? It was not like she could join the typing pool or take a job at Micky Dees. That is one of the reasons that I have always felt Delilah got a bad rap. The poor woman had the Stasi at her door, repeatedly. What was she SUPPOSED to do? Getting the job at Mickey Dees would still have seen her turning tricks.....if she wanted to eat.

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 9:29:14 AM)
But their complaints do not have a specific law passed designed to sanction the denial of services... but if there were would you be opposed to it? Butch

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 9:43:51 AM)
FR We've been assuming she was a prostitute, but the text doesn't actually say that. John 8:1-11 \| New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. (a) 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” (b) And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (c) Footnotes: (a) John 8:8 Other ancient authorities add the sins of each of them (b) John 8:11 Or Lord (c) John 8:11 The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11#en-NRSV-26379

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 10:40:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But their complaints do not have a specific law passed designed to sanction the denial of services... but if there were would you be opposed to it? Butch A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. There's ALWAYS someone who doesn't care about what I want to do as long as it's legal...And I'm willing to pay.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 11:08:32 AM)
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. There's ALWAYS someone who doesn't care about what I want to do as long as it's legal...And I'm willing to pay. Just as there were blacks during segregation who, rather than stand up for their rights, chose to "go along and get along" content to be denied full personhood in return for not being attacked for asking. Others demanded their rights and as a consequence the level of justice has risen a bit. While you may choose to "go along to get along" you may only choose for yourself.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 11:17:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR We've been assuming she was a prostitute, but the text doesn't actually say that. John 8:1-11 \| New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. (a) 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” (b) And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (c) Footnotes: (a) John 8:8 Other ancient authorities add the sins of each of them (b) John 8:11 Or Lord (c) John 8:11 The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11#en-NRSV-26379 I remember reading one of the other gospels not in the bible that has a slightly different crime...she was a hooker which was not against the law. Getting your clients drunk and stealing their money was. As for the "go and sin no more" quite the opposite... they became quite the item. There is more than a little evidence that they were married. Then of course there is the great catholic joke about when he tells them "the one without sin may throw the first stone and as he stoops to pick mary up from the ground a rock whizes past his ear and catches mary a pretty good whack and jesus spins around to see who the rock chucker was and upon recognizing the offender he chides "mom I thought we talked about this".

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 12:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. There's ALWAYS someone who doesn't care about what I want to do as long as it's legal...And I'm willing to pay. Just as there were blacks during segregation who, rather than stand up for their rights, chose to "go along and get along" content to be denied full personhood in return for not being attacked for asking. Others demanded their rights and as a consequence the level of justice has risen a bit. While you may choose to "go along to get along" you may only choose for yourself. And youre wrong about why I make that choice...I choose not to make someone go against their religious beliefs in support of my wants. Not my rights for I have no right to a dungeon, whether for profit or not. I have no right to a cake with cuffs or a crop on it. Not having either of these things doesn't preclude me from living...from working...from voting...from equal pay for the work I do. They are wants stemming from beliefs that can be satisfied elsewhere without trampling on someone else's beliefs.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 12:23:36 PM)
And youre wrong about why I make that choice...I choose not to make someone go against their religious beliefs in support of my wants. There was a time in my country where slavery was justified by religious belief. So shall we go back to those times? Not my rights for I have no right to a dungeon, The right of the people to be secure in their possessions etc obviously does not apply nor should the persuit of happiness it would seem. whether for profit or not. I have no right to a cake with cuffs or a crop on it. Not having either of these things doesn't preclude me from living...from working... I am unaware of any right to work guaranteed by the constitution from voting...from equal pay for the work I do. I am also unaware of any section of the constitution that guarantees you a right to equal pay. They are wants stemming from beliefs that can be satisfied elsewhere without trampling on someone else's beliefs. The beliefs of those with imaginary friends are theirs and not mine. So long as they keep those belief out from under my feet and to themselves they wont have to worry about me tramping on them.

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 12:34:53 PM)
quote: A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. But what if they denied you and your children food shelter and medicine...would you be ok with that too? Butch

Moderator3 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 12:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. There's ALWAYS someone who doesn't care about what I want to do as long as it's legal...And I'm willing to pay. Just as there were blacks during segregation who, rather than stand up for their rights, chose to "go along and get along" content to be denied full personhood in return for not being attacked for asking. Others demanded their rights and as a consequence the level of justice has risen a bit. While you may choose to "go along to get along" you may only choose for yourself. And youre wrong about why I make that choice...I choose not to make someone go against their religious beliefs in support of my wants. Not my rights for I have no right to a dungeon, whether for profit or not. I have no right to a cake with cuffs or a crop on it. Not having either of these things doesn't preclude me from living...from working...from voting...from equal pay for the work I do. They are wants stemming from beliefs that can be satisfied elsewhere without trampling on someone else's beliefs. M3 ~ I must use these posts as an example. When this section of the forum was created, I was challenged on a couple things and met with resistance. In the box we have two posters... two different posters to be specific and yet there isn't a break down between them, therefore it changes the perception of which person is talking or if that is one person talking. I am not going for the reason that some is bolded and the other isn't. That means only one poster can bold and other readers/posters and staff are left to figure it out? As well as other posters can't bold if another does? No. Now, either the quote gets used properly or I will have to start removing the posts that aren't properly done. It is not up to those that use the quote properly to make up for those that are not. Staff will not make up the difference in time to sort it out, as it is your responsibility. I will expect that nicknames will be left in quotes, that another posters words are not changed and quote boxes are used. If not, I will have to remove the post. Thank you

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 1:17:54 PM)
But...but...but Mod 3...you'll take away Thompson's right to be off the cuff and witty

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 1:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But...but...but Mod 3...you'll take away Thompson's right to be off the cuff and witty Not likely

Aylee -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 1:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But...but...but Mod 3...you'll take away Thompson's right to be off the cuff and witty Well, you are half right on the second part. [:D]

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 2:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Those that support a law that not only allows but encourages discrimination by sexual orientation can only be described as having an intense or passionate disliking of a group of people... the very definition of hate in my book... I'm not entirely comfortable with your reasoning here. Legalized gambling can be and has been criticized for destroying lives, bank accounts, and families. Could people who vote to allow gambling in their state be accused of "hating families"? Can all the poor people in line to buy lottery tickets with money better spent on food and clothing for their kids be accused of "hating" their children? K.

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 2:41:51 PM)
Correcting even Moderator 3's HTML.... quote: ORIGINAL: Moderator3 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A law based on the freedom of their religious expression to...hypothetically...rent me their space for use as a dungeon? To make a cake with handcuffs or a crop on it because of their religious beliefs? Yes, I would. And I'd move on. There's ALWAYS someone who doesn't care about what I want to do as long as it's legal...And I'm willing to pay. Just as there were blacks during segregation who, rather than stand up for their rights, chose to "go along and get along" content to be denied full personhood in return for not being attacked for asking. Others demanded their rights and as a consequence the level of justice has risen a bit. While you may choose to "go along to get along" you may only choose for yourself. And youre wrong about why I make that choice...I choose not to make someone go against their religious beliefs in support of my wants. Not my rights for I have no right to a dungeon, whether for profit or not. I have no right to a cake with cuffs or a crop on it. Not having either of these things doesn't preclude me from living...from working...from voting...from equal pay for the work I do. They are wants stemming from beliefs that can be satisfied elsewhere without trampling on someone else's beliefs. M3 ~ I must use these posts as an example. When this section of the forum was created, I was challenged on a couple things and met with resistance. In the box we have two posters... two different posters to be specific and yet there isn't a break down between them, therefore it changes the perception of which person is talking or if that is one person talking. I am not going for the reason that some is bolded and the other isn't. That means only one poster can bold and other readers/posters and staff are left to figure it out? As well as other posters can't bold if another does? No. Now, either the quote gets used properly or I will have to start removing the posts that aren't properly done. It is not up to those that use the quote properly to make up for those that are not. Staff will not make up the difference in time to sort it out, as it is your responsibility. I will expect that nicknames will be left in quotes, that another posters words are not changed and quote boxes are used. If not, I will have to remove the post. Thank you When I write some of the long posts that will quote several times, I'll place the end quote '/quote' that goes in brackets as its own line. So when going from up to down or vise verse, I see all the open and closed 'quote' HTML lines together in uniform. Makes it easier when there is an error to fix it quickly. When I use the BOLD it is to emphasize something I'm stating. Stating stuff only in bold.... IS LIKE TALKING ALL IN CAPS. IT GETS REALLY ANNOYING. PEOPLE THINK YOUR SHOUTING. NOW, IF I JUST DO THIS, I HAVE A MEGAPHONE! BECAUSE SHOUTING WITH BOLD MEANS WHAT EVER I'M SAYING HAS TO BE TRUE. Yes, I will caps and bold, I'll even underline something too. But that is because I understand the simple HTML commands. Its really up to each person to handle their post. The ones that have been on here a while.....HAVE NO EXCUSES I've edited a few posts from only an HTML perspective, because the original writer handled things like thompsonx and others. Fucking annoying! I'm perfectly 'OK' if the Moderators delete posts that fail at basic HTML coding. It really is not hard to pick up on.

Page: << < prev 43 44 [45] 46 47 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625