The Left Loses Ground...

All right, let's expand on your premise that people should be able to adhere to their religious beliefs and refuse to service to gays.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But one can only take so much of your brand of dishonesty for so long. En garde!

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

If there was a gay man/woman I knew who was gay laying on the street bleeding to death, I would call for medical aid or render it as if he or she were straight. A life is a life, being gay or straight is irrelevant. The whole idea of tolerance is acceptance of the views, ideas, and preferences of anyone you encounter, without having to bend to their views, ideas, or preferences. Compassion doesn't know how to discriminate. But people, namely people like you and I, do.

My premise is based on the very consciences of the men and women you call bigots routinely, of whom are simply adhering to their faith, of whom you accuse of wanting to strip gays of their rights and whatnot. I myself don't want to strip anyone of their rights, I think gay marriage is sinful, yet, my beliefs tell me that I must not judge. If that is the case, they can marry regardless of what I believe. But when someone stands in the way of an individual and his God, that's where I draw the line. That is when I speak out.

Denying gays of services at a bakery, a photography studio, or for that matter denying them a bouquet of flowers in no way impedes that goal. They have plenty of other places to offer their patronage, places easily willing to accommodate them. And yes, they can still get married.

Intolerance, as Democrats and gay activists like to point out, is when you look to use government to force your ways and ideals on others, or legislating morality. They, the Democrats, routinely chastise Christians for forcing their faith on people. But look at you, look at your party, look at the people you fight for. You are all doing the same exact thing. You are forcing your worldview on others. This is a game of force, and whoever wins, everyone loses. The chasm that divides us now will be widened to that which is the distance between our Earth and the Moon, simply because nobody can bring themselves to simply tolerate each other.

I, unlike you, know the difference between tolerance and discrimination. You only know only the latter. Democrats and people of your ilk are famous for discrimination, as they are the masters of identity politics. They have words for any occasion; namely "bigot," "misogynist," or "racist." The very act of singling someone out and assigning them a negative identity based on their views or beliefs is the very manifestation of discrimination. So fervent you are to defend gays, blacks, or women that you let your tolerances of other people's beliefs evaporate. The fangs and claws are bared, and you don't care who it is you tear apart.

Now, to further expound on your previous point, lets use the 3,000 people who died in the WTC on 9/11. The firefighters who sacrificed their lives to try to save them didn't know nor care if anyone in those buildings were gay. Not one. You my friend must apply politics to any kind of situation when it isn't needed. It is absolutely repulsive that one cannot take one breath without politics hanging on the very air he breathes. You see your world though political eyes.

My argument is valid, and has been made by others. You just don't want to face the fact that it IS discrimination.


On legal discrimination
Published 8:00am Thursday, December 11, 2014


Last week the Michigan State House passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which allows for someone to discriminate against others based on their personal religious beliefs. This bill is now waiting in the State Senate and many political insiders feel that it has a very good chance of being passed.

The sponsor of this legislation, House Speaker Jase Bolger claims that this is not a license to discriminate but opponents of the RFRA state that it will make it legal to refuse service, deny employment or housing, or violate the rights of others based on religious grounds.

Also, as one Michigan state representative pointed out, this law could be used to deny someone medical care. For instance, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control or HIV medications, and that has already occurred under a similar law in Illinois, or a paramedic could refuse to treat an accident victim. Or a police officer could refuse to intercede in a domestic violence dispute or like a recent event that occurred in Oklahoma where a police officer refused to safeguard a mosque or in Utah where an officer refused to police a gay pride parade and both are paid by the taxpayers to carry out these sworn duties.

You can keep repeating yourself, but you can't face the fact that you are just as discriminatory as you claim we are. Oh by the way, I love how you completely dodged my point.

Your "point" has been made VERY clear by your ilk on this board...

Quantum Windbag said:
Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

Cecilie1200 said:
No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

bripat9643 said:
Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.
 
All right, let's expand on your premise that people should be able to adhere to their religious beliefs and refuse to service to gays.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But one can only take so much of your brand of dishonesty for so long. En garde!

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

If there was a gay man/woman I knew who was gay laying on the street bleeding to death, I would call for medical aid or render it as if he or she were straight. A life is a life, being gay or straight is irrelevant. The whole idea of tolerance is acceptance of the views, ideas, and preferences of anyone you encounter, without having to bend to their views, ideas, or preferences. Compassion doesn't know how to discriminate. But people, namely people like you and I, do.

My premise is based on the very consciences of the men and women you call bigots routinely, of whom are simply adhering to their faith, of whom you accuse of wanting to strip gays of their rights and whatnot. I myself don't want to strip anyone of their rights, I think gay marriage is sinful, yet, my beliefs tell me that I must not judge. If that is the case, they can marry regardless of what I believe. But when someone stands in the way of an individual and his God, that's where I draw the line. That is when I speak out.

Denying gays of services at a bakery, a photography studio, or for that matter denying them a bouquet of flowers in no way impedes that goal. They have plenty of other places to offer their patronage, places easily willing to accommodate them. And yes, they can still get married.

Intolerance, as Democrats and gay activists like to point out, is when you look to use government to force your ways and ideals on others, or legislating morality. They, the Democrats, routinely chastise Christians for forcing their faith on people. But look at you, look at your party, look at the people you fight for. You are all doing the same exact thing. You are forcing your worldview on others. This is a game of force, and whoever wins, everyone loses. The chasm that divides us now will be widened to that which is the distance between our Earth and the Moon, simply because nobody can bring themselves to simply tolerate each other.

I, unlike you, know the difference between tolerance and discrimination. You only know only the latter. Democrats and people of your ilk are famous for discrimination, as they are the masters of identity politics. They have words for any occasion; namely "bigot," "misogynist," or "racist." The very act of singling someone out and assigning them a negative identity based on their views or beliefs is the very manifestation of discrimination. So fervent you are to defend gays, blacks, or women that you let your tolerances of other people's beliefs evaporate. The fangs and claws are bared, and you don't care who it is you tear apart.

Now, to further expound on your previous point, lets use the 3,000 people who died in the WTC on 9/11. The firefighters who sacrificed their lives to try to save them didn't know nor care if anyone in those buildings were gay. Not one. You my friend must apply politics to any kind of situation when it isn't needed. It is absolutely repulsive that one cannot take one breath without politics hanging on the very air he breathes. You see your world though political eyes.

My argument is valid, and has been made by others. You just don't want to face the fact that it IS discrimination.


On legal discrimination
Published 8:00am Thursday, December 11, 2014


Last week the Michigan State House passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which allows for someone to discriminate against others based on their personal religious beliefs. This bill is now waiting in the State Senate and many political insiders feel that it has a very good chance of being passed.

The sponsor of this legislation, House Speaker Jase Bolger claims that this is not a license to discriminate but opponents of the RFRA state that it will make it legal to refuse service, deny employment or housing, or violate the rights of others based on religious grounds.

Also, as one Michigan state representative pointed out, this law could be used to deny someone medical care. For instance, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control or HIV medications, and that has already occurred under a similar law in Illinois, or a paramedic could refuse to treat an accident victim. Or a police officer could refuse to intercede in a domestic violence dispute or like a recent event that occurred in Oklahoma where a police officer refused to safeguard a mosque or in Utah where an officer refused to police a gay pride parade and both are paid by the taxpayers to carry out these sworn duties.

You can keep repeating yourself, but you can't face the fact that you are just as discriminatory as you claim we are. Oh by the way, I love how you completely dodged my point.

Your "point" has been made VERY clear by your ilk on this board...

Quantum Windbag said:
Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

Cecilie1200 said:
No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

bripat9643 said:
Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

They are not my "ilk" nor do they represent me or my values. Your usage of ad hominem only shows how desperate you are to paint me as something I'm not. I will never, ever, let anyone make my points for me. You might, you have an establishment that feeds you yours. Truly pathetic that you use just as much hatred against others that you accuse people and those of my "ilk" of using against homosexuals.

You're angry. Your posts show it. Your argument shows it. You're growing increasingly indignant, not only that, you will have to accept that there are more superior arguments than yours; and people who disagree.

Nobody makes my points except me. Got that?
 
Last edited:
Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
 
Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
When any two can, we'll work on three or more. Not there yet.
 
I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
When any two can, we'll work on three or more. Not there yet.
give them an inch ...
 
Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
When any two can, we'll work on three or more. Not there yet.
give them an inch ...

What inch? Either the right to polygamist marriages exist or it doesn't. If you believe they have that right, it's completely separate from non familial consenting adult couples.
 
By the way, for those of you familiar with things called dictionaries, discrimination isn't limited to legal matters. Discrimination is the ability to differentiate, pick out and delineate between one person, thing, or another.

Yes, yes, keep quoting me the legal definitions of discrimination, and I'll point you to what the First Amendment says about freedom to practice one's faith. Last I checked there was no clause saying where and when a person could do that.

LOL...in this post you are saying the exact same thing...

Cecilie1200 said:
No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

bripat9643 said:
Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.
 
I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
When any two can, we'll work on three or more. Not there yet.

What's your priority after that, pedophilia or bestiality?
 
Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.
Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...
Why limit it to just two? You're a bigot.
When any two can, we'll work on three or more. Not there yet.

What's your priority after that, pedophilia or bestiality?
Peace and quiet...
 
One thing is for certain, the rightwing has totally and completely lost this argument/issue.
 

Forum List

Back
Top