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

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 2:47:25 PM)
Kirata to me voting to allow gambling is not targeting one group of people as this law did... there is a difference. Butch

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 2:55:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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? What does gambling have to do with sexual orientation? Or are you trying to have us believe that like gambling, sexual orientation that is non-heterosexual destroys lives, bank accounts, and families? NEWS FLASH: Same thing happens to heterosexuals. In fact, more often! Why do poor people buy lottery tickets, Kirata? Did you ever spend time thinking on that one? The answer is 'No'. I can understand why a pseudo-Christian would have a hard time understanding the concept. Being selfish is a virtue to pseudo-Christians, but for everyone else, its a distasteful existence! Poor people understand that there is little to no chance of improving their economic conditions in the immediate or long term struggle. That 'breaking even' is just a pairing of words that mean nothing to them. Yet, to live in a moment where they don't have to scrap nickles together to buy bread; instead haul off to the movies and buy their children food and drink.....would be amazing. To own a brand new car; paying cash for it; rather than a loan for a clunker that's 11 years old already. To live in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, sending kids to a nice school, and relaxing alittle bit during the week....is something most poor people know of only in TV shows and movies. They buy the lottery tickets in the hope things will change in their favor. They have the same hope of becoming rich as pseudo-Christians do of getting into Heaven. The difference is the poor are more likely to have their hopes realized by a wide margin!

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 3:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Kirata to me voting to allow gambling is not targeting one group of people as this law did... there is a difference. Gambling operations target the naive and the gullible. Are they irrelevant in your world? K.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 3:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Did you ever spend time thinking on that one? The answer is 'No'. I can understand why a pseudo-Christian would have a hard time understanding the concept. Being selfish is a virtue to pseudo-Christians, but for everyone else, its a distasteful existence! What the fuck is with this "Christian" theme you keep throwing at me? K.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 3:11:39 PM)
Anything else about me, besides being right all the time, that you find "fucking annoying"?

Politesub53 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 3:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. Every source I have posted has been a single source, try adding them together and you will see they now become multiple.. Your objection is crass, considering we are talking about hatred of a certain group. That is wtf you should be offended about, hate filled bigotry.

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 5:47:51 PM)
quote: Gambling operations target the naive and the gullible. Are they irrelevant in your world? Not if a casino owner decides gays cannot gamble because it is against his or hers religion....[:D] Ridiculous... yes...just like your argument. The Gambling business targets all equally. You can use your argument for all business...for instance... The St. Louis Rams target the naive and gullible when they buy tickets to their games.... The same goes for the Chicago Cubs. Butch

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 6:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR For peon, who called this first. [:)] [image]local://upfiles/312801/17E52A09ABCA43B2B292B2F69998D149.jpg[/image] I think that certain Christian church types are just demonstrating their compassion on this one, DC. After all, as someone has warmly and lovingly pointed out on this thread, being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" - if you're gay, you could change and become heterosexual overnight if you wanted to. On the other hand - if you're fat, that's quite different. You are fat for life and fighting that is like fighting All the Forces of Satan. It can't be done. And this, you see, is why the Church is gentle on the sin of gluttony, whereas it comes down heavily and with nostrils breathing righteous frigging sulphorous fire on homosexuals. Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 6:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The St. Louis Rams target the naive and gullible when they buy tickets to their games.... The same goes for the Chicago Cubs. [sm=applause.gif] [:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/8/2015 6:41:12 PM)
The rams, yes. The cubs, that comes under the heading of kicking crippled beggars and taking their money.

tweakabelle -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 4:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ......

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:05:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak?

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:13:51 AM)
What the top of the wedding cake looked like was not important?[8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak? Talk about asswipe, how do you know they are not saving themselves for after the marriage?

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:37:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. I can't speak for DC but for me it's easy. I simply look around, realize that those asswipes comprise a very small part of all christians, then stay away from them. Kinda the same way I can still be friends with muslims despite the terrorists who kill anyone who disagrees with them.

thishereboi -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:39:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak? If it's the same place I am thinking of, all they did was state they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. They also added that they would not refuse to serve anyone who came to the restaurant to eat.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 7:59:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak? If it's the same place I am thinking of, all they did was state they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. They also added that they would not refuse to serve anyone who came to the restaurant to eat. Shhhhh boi...they want you to forget that the owner also stated that last part. It doesn't fit the narrative.

tweakabelle -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 8:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak? When I wrote that post, I didn't have this particular case in mind but was speaking generally about typical cases of discrimination, as ought to be clear from the text itself which doesn't refer to any one case - rather it speaks about discrimination generally. It's your mistaken assumption that I had this particular case in mind. So the asswipe, as you so charmingly chose to term it, is all yours. Own it.

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 8:46:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer <snip> I think that certain Christian church types are just demonstrating their compassion on this one, DC. After all, as someone has warmly and lovingly pointed out on this thread, being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" - if you're gay, you could change and become heterosexual overnight if you wanted to. On the other hand - if you're fat, that's quite different. You are fat for life and fighting that is like fighting All the Forces of Satan. It can't be done. And this, you see, is why the Church is gentle on the sin of gluttony, whereas it comes down heavily and with nostrils breathing righteous frigging sulphorous fire on homosexuals. Ironically enough, my gluttony has wounded my life far more than my sexual orientation ever did. quote: Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. Strange as it may sound, my intensely Catholic childhood--altar boy, folk group member, lector, rectory receptionist, prep seminarian--helped with that in two ways. The first was that I was surrounded by people who were comfortable enough in their loyalty/devotion to be incredibly candid about institutional foibles and failings. So I've always had a warts-and-all perspective on religion. And I've also known that, for all our flaws, church folk are capable of great love and good humor. The second was that, stereotypes aside, Catholic moral teaching prizes reason. Even when I disagree with the conclusions, I respect that lots of careful thought went into them. Catholics are emphatically--and a bit snobbishly, to be honest--not Bible-thumpers. All that said, I did eventually conclude that Catholicism was not the right home for me as an out gay guy. I was blessedly fortunate to find my way to a quirky Episcopal parish that has been one of the great joys of my life--and a tremendous support during my medical misadventures. Two favorite quotations also help when I feel frustrated by the public face of Christianity: "Do you consider yourself a Christian?" [the interviewer] asked. I sighed and said, "My problem with that is that so many people who publicly identify themselves as Christians are such jerks about it." The woman laughed, as did the people in the sound booth behind her. . . . I said I often wondered if being a Christian was something we could, or should, claim for ourselves; that if being a Christian meant incarnating the love of Christ in my own life, then maybe it would be best to let others tell me how well, or how badly, I'm doing. KATHLEEN NORRIS, THE CLOISTER WALK * * * If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention? C.S. LEWIS, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS Heavens, that's a long answer! Hope it helps. [:)]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/9/2015 8:56:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Lordy, DC, how do you put up with these right wing Christians and their never ending self-serving flatulence and still remain a Christian? You have way more staying power than I. But Peon they tell us they don't hate homosexuals at all. They insist that they love homosexuals, that they "love the sinner but hate the sin". Of course refusing to serve perceived or genuine homosexuals is hating the sinner because the discriminator hasn't the foggiest idea of what sins they may or may not have committed. When they discriminate, all they have to go on is the evidence in front of their eyes which normally wouldn't include a vision into what goes on in that person's bedroom. It's all about the sinner - it can't be anything else. But, where sinners and/or sin is involved, it's best not to take chances isn't it? Nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety is there? Just a shame that perceived or genuine gays aren't granted the same margin of ~~grace~~error. That would be erring on the side of compassion. And that would be so unChristian ...... Talk about asswipe... No one in this story, including the pizza owner, made any sort of judgement based on the way someone looked. Their decision was based on what they were told. But that doesn't fit the nice little narrative you've got going does it, tweak? When I wrote that post, I didn't have this particular case in mind but was speaking generally about typical cases of discrimination, as ought to be clear from the text itself which doesn't refer to any one case - rather it speaks about discrimination generally. It's your mistaken assumption that I had this particular case in mind. So the asswipe, as you so charmingly chose to term it, is all yours. Own it. Actually, you own it because...as usual...you And others have gone to generalities instead of speaking to the specifics of thofcase which broubrought this thread into being. You can speak about "Christian hate" in general all you want but unless you choose to focus on the specifics of the case in question, all you're doing is making a case that Christians...in general...are haters. Maybe the ones you know are...but I'm not. And while there are many in the church I used to belong to...one reason I no longer belong to that OR any other church...there are many who are not.

Page: << < prev 44 45 [46] 47 48 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625