Obama ... We Need to Overcome Our Religious Convictions?

[Bonzi]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

The supposed quote is said to be at the 6 minute mark of his speech.
I listened from the 5 minute mark to the 7 minute mark, THE PRESIDENT SAID NO SUCH THING!!!!!!

So either it's somewhere else in his speech or, as usual, Conservatives need something new to lie about...

They are comenting on what he was "thinking"

.... or "listening" between the lines.... speech writers are hired to write things in a way in which the speaker (President) can't be called out for saying it .... some people catch on, some don't ....

 

[bendog]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

The supposed quote is said to be at the 6 minute mark of his speech.
I listened from the 5 minute mark to the 7 minute mark, THE PRESIDENT SAID NO SUCH THING!!!!!!

So either it's somewhere else in his speech or, as usual, Conservatives need something new to lie about...

They are comenting on what he was "thinking"

.... or "listening" between the lines.... speech writers are hired to write things in a way in which the speaker (President) can't be called out for saying it .... some people catch on, some don't ....

Did you ever put up a link for this OP?

 

[Bonzi]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

The supposed quote is said to be at the 6 minute mark of his speech.
I listened from the 5 minute mark to the 7 minute mark, THE PRESIDENT SAID NO SUCH THING!!!!!!

So either it's somewhere else in his speech or, as usual, Conservatives need something new to lie about...

They are comenting on what he was "thinking"

.... or "listening" between the lines.... speech writers are hired to write things in a way in which the speaker (President) can't be called out for saying it .... some people catch on, some don't ....

Did you ever put up a link for this OP?

I can - and will, but have already admitted they "altered" what Obama said.... here you go:
NOTE: I know nothing about this site but guess it is a Tea Party site or something like it....
Obama We Need To Help People Overcome Their Religious Beliefs Truth And Action

 

[Exquisite]

Within the legal confines of commerce, people should have to follow the law. Beyond that, think and believe whatever you want.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want. That would never work. It's about making things as fair as possible for everyone.

Where in the constitution does it say a person loses their free exercise of religion because they engage in commerce?

And your second statement is argumentum ad absurdum, and not even worth my time.

In reply to the first paragraph, I didn't say it did.

As for your second paragraph, explain why it is "argumentum ad absurdum."

Bakers are not asking to do "anything they want". Those specific bakers just don't want to work on a gay wedding. You imply that asking for that is asking for carte blanche, which is clearly not the case.

There are laws against discrimination that public businesses are expected to adhere to including bakers.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain why my second paragraph was "argumentum ad absurdum."

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

 

[bendog]

So, the OP is bullshite. figures.

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution does it say a person loses their free exercise of religion because they engage in commerce?

And your second statement is argumentum ad absurdum, and not even worth my time.

In reply to the first paragraph, I didn't say it did.

As for your second paragraph, explain why it is "argumentum ad absurdum."

Bakers are not asking to do "anything they want". Those specific bakers just don't want to work on a gay wedding. You imply that asking for that is asking for carte blanche, which is clearly not the case.

There are laws against discrimination that public businesses are expected to adhere to including bakers.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain why my second paragraph was "argumentum ad absurdum."

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

 

[Bonzi]

So, the OP is bullshite. figures.

He said it, just not in those words... but yes, however, the question was asked if it was a misquote and even the Thread topic is a question....

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine the challenge of this "president's" speech writers!

Having to make sure He can pronounce all the words on the teleprompter (they get a passing grade on that part but just passing).

Having to limit words to two syllables so the faithful have a fair chance of catching the meanings.

NOT an easy task!

 

[Exquisite]

In reply to the first paragraph, I didn't say it did.

As for your second paragraph, explain why it is "argumentum ad absurdum."

Bakers are not asking to do "anything they want". Those specific bakers just don't want to work on a gay wedding. You imply that asking for that is asking for carte blanche, which is clearly not the case.

There are laws against discrimination that public businesses are expected to adhere to including bakers.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain why my second paragraph was "argumentum ad absurdum."

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

Discrimination laws trump personal beliefs.

I have no argument about the couple being able to go elsewhere. That is what I would choose to do but then I have no preference when it comes to some things. Others do and our laws protect them from having to go elsewhere.

 

[martybegan]

Bakers are not asking to do "anything they want". Those specific bakers just don't want to work on a gay wedding. You imply that asking for that is asking for carte blanche, which is clearly not the case.

There are laws against discrimination that public businesses are expected to adhere to including bakers.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain why my second paragraph was "argumentum ad absurdum."

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

Discrimination laws trump personal beliefs.

I have no argument about the couple being able to go elsewhere. That is what I would choose to do but then I have no preference when it comes to some things. Others do and our laws protect them from having to go elsewhere.

Why do discrimination laws trump personal beliefs, in particular when it is a protected belief?

Why is one person's butthurt more equal than another person's butthurt, and more importantly, why should government care over something as trivial as a wedding cake?

 

[HenryBHough]

Not long and "religious convictions" will refer not to beliefs.

Rather, to the results of the trials of those who profess any religious beliefs.

 

[TooTall]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

A religious belief is not necessarily a good belief.

Which ones do you think are not good?

 

[Exquisite]

There are laws against discrimination that public businesses are expected to adhere to including bakers.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain why my second paragraph was "argumentum ad absurdum."

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

Discrimination laws trump personal beliefs.

I have no argument about the couple being able to go elsewhere. That is what I would choose to do but then I have no preference when it comes to some things. Others do and our laws protect them from having to go elsewhere.

Why do discrimination laws trump personal beliefs, in particular when it is a protected belief?

Why is one person's butthurt more equal than another person's butthurt, and more importantly, why should government care over something as trivial as a wedding cake?

The law is a two-way street. It trumps everyone's personal beliefs.

A homosexual baker cannot refuse to make a cake for heterosexual couples based solely on the baker's personal beliefs against heterosexuality.

 

[reconmark]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

The supposed quote is said to be at the 6 minute mark of his speech.
I listened from the 5 minute mark to the 7 minute mark, THE PRESIDENT SAID NO SUCH THING!!!!!!

So either it's somewhere else in his speech or, as usual, Conservatives need something new to lie about...

They are comenting on what he was "thinking"

.... or "listening" between the lines.... speech writers are hired to write things in a way in which the speaker (President) can't be called out for saying it .... some people catch on, some don't ....

So I get it now. He never really said what you assert he did, you simply want us to believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of his words...lol.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I did explain it. You went with 'if we allow this bakers will do anything they want!" line of logic, which is agrumentum ad absurdum.

And requiring a baker to perform an act they do not want to do was not the purpose of PA laws, which were designed for necessary or time sensitive services, not contracted services like wedding cakes.

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

Discrimination laws trump personal beliefs.

I have no argument about the couple being able to go elsewhere. That is what I would choose to do but then I have no preference when it comes to some things. Others do and our laws protect them from having to go elsewhere.

Why do discrimination laws trump personal beliefs, in particular when it is a protected belief?

Why is one person's butthurt more equal than another person's butthurt, and more importantly, why should government care over something as trivial as a wedding cake?

The law is a two-way street. It trumps everyone's personal beliefs.

A homosexual baker cannot refuse to make a cake for heterosexual couples based solely on the baker's personal beliefs against heterosexuality.

Nor can a muslim baker refuse to make a cake for a kristian wedding, or barmitsvah (sp).

And the religious whacks need to stop acting like innocent cherubs. They and their political wings have been trying to force their religion be taught in science class as SCIENCE for a decade now. And they constructed a fake museum to brainwash children into thinking children played alongside 'friendly' dinosaurs.
Mental illness that is attempting to replicate itself.

Keep your invisible mythical magical flying beings and leave them in your church or home.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What you are saying now is the comment was or may have been bullshit, is that correct? If you believed it might have been so, why didn't you do the research before starting the thread?

The consequence - intended or not - incited the crazy right wing and that was my point. If trolling was not your intent I'm sorry to so accuse you, let's chalk it up as an unintended consequence.

The original post was admitted as "possibly" erroneous, and, obviously the source had re-worded Obama's speech for effect.

.....well, Dad, I didn't do the research before I posted / started he thread because I didn't feel like it and I don't have to answer to anyone. This is a message board, not a job or a court of law!

I have no clue what trolling is, but, I like to hear good, rationale arguments from all sides. You learn a lot that way.

You don't have to answer to anyone, that's a fact.

Once can also learn from poorly written irrational posts, and most are not up to the standard considered an argument in the academic sense.

Ones credibility and reputation is formed by the number of the former and the number of the latter they post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

He wants us to forget about laws, morals, or decency.

He's a Godless commie.

Nuff said.

Is it legal to defame others?
Is it moral to lie about others?
Is it decent to lie about others?

Seems to me this thread does all this by innuendo; strongly suggesting its author is, not a "Godless commie", but a dishonest partisan hack.

Obama wasn't forced into the Whitehouse.......He volunteered.

And anything I say about him is simply a reaction to his actions......not because he's a helpless, innocent, bystander.

Obama was elected to live in the White House, after being nominated by his party to serve as their standard bearer. Everything you say about him is your interpretation of his actions, not necessarily accurate, honest, informed or ethical.

 

[Seawytch]

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced, Obama stated that the progressives in society needs to ‘help’ those with deeply held religious beliefs overcome their convictions.

I did not listen to the speech, but have seen this here and there on the internet. Although, not on any of the major news agencies/papers (CNN,FOX, Washington Post, NY Times etc.)

What are your thoughts on his statement above? Is it misquoted?

A religious belief is not necessarily a good belief.

Which ones do you think are not good?

How about the ones that make women out to be 2nd class citizens and allow for slavery? Those are bad...and common in Abrahamic religions.

 

[Exquisite]

Not long and "religious convictions" will refer not to beliefs.

Rather, to the results of the trials of those who profess any religious beliefs.

Unlike numerous religions throughout history, people that actually want equal rights for everyone will stand up for your right to believe whatever mythology you choose without persecution provided it isn't infringing upon or hurting anyone else.

 

[Exquisite]

No, you stated that the "argumentum ad absurdum" was about my second paragraph which did not contain your incorrect quotation of my words.

Freedom within a society isn't about everyone being able to do whatever they want.

They don't want to do anything they want, they want to be able to follow their moral code. and forcing them to go against it is worse than a gay couple having to find another baker.

Discrimination laws trump personal beliefs.

I have no argument about the couple being able to go elsewhere. That is what I would choose to do but then I have no preference when it comes to some things. Others do and our laws protect them from having to go elsewhere.

Why do discrimination laws trump personal beliefs, in particular when it is a protected belief?

Why is one person's butthurt more equal than another person's butthurt, and more importantly, why should government care over something as trivial as a wedding cake?

The law is a two-way street. It trumps everyone's personal beliefs.

A homosexual baker cannot refuse to make a cake for heterosexual couples based solely on the baker's personal beliefs against heterosexuality.

Nor can a muslim baker refuse to make a cake for a kristian wedding, or barmitsvah (sp).

And the religious whacks need to stop acting like innocent cherubs. They and their political wings have been trying to force their religion be taught in science class as SCIENCE for a decade now. And they constructed a fake museum to brainwash children into thinking children played alongside 'friendly' dinosaurs.
Mental illness that is attempting to replicate itself.

Keep your invisible mythical magical flying beings and leave them in your church or home.

Not quite the way I would have worded it but the basic premise is something I can agree with.