RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

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



Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 11:11:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I see it as simple discrimination
He could have used a number of other ways to deny them a cake that wouldnt have made it "discrimination"
He chose to use their orientation against them.
Having said that, I expect the SCOTUS will rule in favour of him and chaos will ensue.
And that makes me angry on so many levels


He won't decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding. That's the God's honest truth (pun intended).

What way to discriminate would have been okay? You realize you're saying it would have been better had he lied than tell the truth, right?



DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 11:15:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats

That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights.
Butch


There is also a right to exercise one's religion as one sees fit. Where is the right to force someone to do something their religious beliefs oppose?



DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 11:16:35 AM)


Well, let's see ...

I gave it to you ... twice:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I agree, though. I tend to look at all of the Bible with a critical eye. If it withstands my scrutiny, even if it still requires some faith, I'm okay with that. As an example: there's a military explanation for why Jericho's wall fell. So, I still believe it fell.

There's a theory about how Moses evaded the Egyptians which doesn't embody hundreds (or thousands) of Egyptian soldiers and charioteers dying. So, I still believe Moses got away.




You, repeated it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Here is what you actually said:

I agree, though. I tend to look at all of the Bible with a critical eye. If it withstands my scrutiny, even if it still requires some faith, I'm okay with that. As an example: there's a military explanation for why Jericho's wall fell. So, I still believe it fell.

There's a theory about how Moses evaded the Egyptians which doesn't embody hundreds (or thousands) of Egyptian soldiers and charioteers dying. So, I still believe Moses got away.


Then, you tell me you understand, but you don't understand . o 0 (I think I see the maintenance crew, coming on the field to start moving goal posts) ...



quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I do understand what you are saying... But I am asking you what do you mean by... if it withstands my scrutiny? What scrutiny... it seems to me there is NO scrutiny only blind Faith on your part that the verse is truly the word of God and not just the feelings of the scribe. Would you not agree that some conflicting verses in the Bible can not reasonably be true? What scrutiny on your part reinforces your belief?


It seems like you're asking me to define "my scrutiny"? I guess I could give you a link to a dictionary site?

quote:

Scrutiny
Close, careful examination or observation.


What's more to know? I gave two examples of stories from the OT which I scrutinized. I don't quite understand what's so difficult about that?

Honestly, I don't think I know what it is you're asking me.








JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:02:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

not for the first time, and probably not the last time i'll be saying this, I wish the left would learn what a lie is.

your issue with Michael here is not that he's lying, its that youre continuing to settle on that as an explanation when you ultimately don't, or don't want to, understand what he's saying.

and I agree with the "death of lofty goals" sentiment long before it was even pointed out.


Then maybe you can explain what he's saying? Better yet, prove it to be true. Oh, and if you could show me how it's relevant, that would be great too.

I concede that at some point, attorneys from the ACLU became involved, on the side of the couple. DS's claim is that the couple went immediately to them, yet there's no proof of that. He linked to a court document, claiming it was the original action in the case. The document itself proves that to be inaccurate.

In fact, the document he's presented lists both an assistant district attorney and a senior assistant district attorney as Counsel in Support of the Complaint (so on the side of the couple). It also lists an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom representing the bakery. Now, the first link to come up when googling ADF says that they're an anti-LGBT hate group, but their own site says they promote religious freedom and family values. I'll read a bit more on both sites and make an informed opinion a bit later.

Nevertheless, what attorneys from what groups on either side is irrelevant. Except for the Assistant and Senior Assistant District Attorneys, which proves that the State of Colorado's District Attorney's office has already become involved, and has chosen to support the gay couple in this matter.



JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
And you're on the side of Roy Moore, an alleged pedophile.


Really? Wtf does Roy Moore have to do with any of this? This is low for you, JVoV.



Ah, thanks for catching that. It's a fairly obvious fallacy of relevance, just as DS's concern about the involvement of the ACLU.

Isn't that low of him?



JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:22:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats

That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights.
Butch


There is also a right to exercise one's religion as one sees fit. Where is the right to force someone to do something their religious beliefs oppose?


The argument is that" the bakery owner's religious beliefs oppose creating and decorating a gay wedding cake". Yet, he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so, so that part of the argument is invalid.

Which leaves us with the bakery owner's religious beliefs opposes homosexuality. And no one is forcing him to take part in that.



DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:31:53 PM)



Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]






DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:33:12 PM)



Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]






JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:46:19 PM)

Redundant, irrelevant, shallow, and infantile.



DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:46:45 PM)



Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]






bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 12:50:53 PM)

im not getting involved in the argument other than to point out youre quick to mistrust someone and cry "liar" as opposed to seeking understanding.




JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 1:40:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im not getting involved in the argument other than to point out youre quick to mistrust someone and cry "liar" as opposed to seeking understanding.


Then it should be pointed out that my exact words were "please stop lying", referring to an action, not a character trait. And pray tell, what would you call something that is emphatically untrue, and easily proven as such?

However, if I'm being accused of calling him a liar already, then no reason for me not to actually do so, is there?

Meanwhile, you've already become involved in the argument, on your own accord, by telling me "your issue with Michael here is not that he's lying, its that youre continuing to settle on that as an explanation when you ultimately don't, or don't want to, understand what he's saying." (Your words.)

If you can interpret his words so that they make sense to me and the truth of them rings out, then I welcome such enlightenment. But if you can't, or simply refuse to try, then why broach the subject at all?



DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 2:16:09 PM)


Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HJW5as8WVN.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarspace.com/attachments/121417/x9BEBDD62-8582-4D94-9475-B66A2B4CF19F2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6nwc__fUrw.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
You've been caught in a deliberate and willful misrepresentation of the truth.










JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 2:45:57 PM)

Yes. Yes, you have. Not a good debate tactic, which leads me to believe you have no valid argument left to present.

You've been quite petty throughout this thread, even pedantic at times, and that's your usual behavior, so it really comes as no surprise.

And it's no surprise that I would be called out on similar behavior quickly, as Desi did on my Roy Moore comment. Though I will point out that every word I said was factual and can be verified, while yours are not and cannot be.

Have you no shame in misrepresenting facts? Or carrying on like a buffoon throughout this thread?

And is there any wonder in your mind why I never would have trusted you in an actual combat situation?



Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 3:48:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I see it as simple discrimination
He could have used a number of other ways to deny them a cake that wouldnt have made it "discrimination"
He chose to use their orientation against them.
Having said that, I expect the SCOTUS will rule in favour of him and chaos will ensue.
And that makes me angry on so many levels


He won't decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding. That's the God's honest truth (pun intended).

What way to discriminate would have been okay? You realize you're saying it would have been better had he lied than tell the truth, right?


people lie to each other all the time to get out of something they dont wanna do.
often in a way to not upset the person asking for something.
I guess its better to blatantly discriminate than it is to "lie"?






Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 4:23:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Yes. Yes, you have. Not a good debate tactic, which leads me to believe you have no valid argument left to present.

You've been quite petty throughout this thread, even pedantic at times, and that's your usual behavior, so it really comes as no surprise.

And it's no surprise that I would be called out on similar behavior quickly, as Desi did on my Roy Moore comment. Though I will point out that every word I said was factual and can be verified, while yours are not and cannot be.

Have you no shame in misrepresenting facts? Or carrying on like a buffoon throughout this thread?

And is there any wonder in your mind why I never would have trusted you in an actual combat situation?


I wouldnt trust him to shut a door without lying.



kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 5:24:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats

That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights.
Butch


There is also a right to exercise one's religion as one sees fit. Where is the right to force someone to do something their religious beliefs oppose?



If that were true my friend then some Muslims would feel entitled to throw gays off of roofs...some Christians would feel empowered to stone gays to death... My friend religion rights have limits... the limit is when your religious right denys me my human rights. Are we as Americans going to allow some religions to have privileges that non religious do not have? If you say Christians can deny food to gays but not none religious you are giving special privileges to a Christian sect. Because we are a country of many religions with many beliefs as well and a good portion of agnostics and atheist our Constitution FIRST guarantees our human rights and only then provides that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Denying food is not free exercising of their religion... Providing a cake is not prohibiting their religion... If it is please show me anywhere in the Bible where it says not to provide food to anyone.

Bottom Line I believe our human right to equality trump religious rights when when the two come in conflict.

Butch



Wayward5oul -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 5:28:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Yes. Yes, you have. Not a good debate tactic, which leads me to believe you have no valid argument left to present.

You've been quite petty throughout this thread, even pedantic at times, and that's your usual behavior, so it really comes as no surprise.

And it's no surprise that I would be called out on similar behavior quickly, as Desi did on my Roy Moore comment. Though I will point out that every word I said was factual and can be verified, while yours are not and cannot be.

Have you no shame in misrepresenting facts? Or carrying on like a buffoon throughout this thread?

And is there any wonder in your mind why I never would have trusted you in an actual combat situation?

He has done the same in other threads. Even when he is proven wing, he will not ever admit any error on his part. It doesn't surprise me that he is behaving this way with you.



JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 7:07:36 PM)

I'm not surprised at all about DS's behavior.

Nor am I surprised at all with just how tribal this thread has become. It's virtually the same in all of them, isn't it?

But how many of you here could actually be impacted by a decision in this case that goes against your side? What's at stake for you? Or people you love?

For me, what's at stake is continued indignities, being treated as a second-class citizen, turned away for who I am and who I love.

I have faith that the Supreme Court will get this issue right, but it may not come in this decision. I can keep fighting, if that's the case.



DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/15/2017 8:38:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
And you're on the side of Roy Moore, an alleged pedophile.

Really? Wtf does Roy Moore have to do with any of this? This is low for you, JVoV.

Ah, thanks for catching that. It's a fairly obvious fallacy of relevance, just as DS's concern about the involvement of the ACLU.
Isn't that low of him?


Right. His claim that the ACLU is involved is the same as bringing up an alleged pedophile. That's fucked up and twisted logic, there, JVoV.

Did you debunk his claim?



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875