Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Procrustes Stretched]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.

gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?

Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

American Taliban don't shoot women for walking outside of their house...

not yet and not because they would not. They don't have to, but if they had to -- apply what they do to people who work at family planning/abortion clinics

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your perception of 'attacks' on Christians is subjective and false – to tell a Christian it is un-Constitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is not to 'attack' that Christian.

That very same 1st Amendment guarantees that Christians have the right to practice their faith. As stated in Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878), government cannot regulate belief, only marriage. So, it stands to reason that any anti-discrimination law that penalizes Christians for refusing to participate in activities that they find sinful is a clear regulation of belief. Imagine my surprise.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940) the court ruled that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. This ruling ensured greater religious freedom, and barred states from making determinations on what is or isn't religious. I am to assume that anti-discrimination laws make the same determination. Those essentially tell a Christian his beliefs aren't religious enough to allow for discrimination.

"...to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

-Justice Owen Roberts in Cantwell, opining in a unanimous decision

 

[Spare_change]

When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.

Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.

Ignorant nonsense.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens, where government alone has the authority and means to limit or restrict speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

When 'defense' of traditional Judeo-Christian values manifests as seeking to deny citizens their civil rights through force of law in violation of the Constitution, it's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to denounce such efforts, and correctly identify the ignorance and hate that motivate efforts to violate citizens' civil rights.

For private citizens to denounce ignorance and hate in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society, in no way undermines America's commitment to free speech.

Why don't you read what is posted???? Damn --- it's tough dealing with the close-minded.

It's tough dealing with you and others who are ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

One can't be 'open-minded' to the 'argument' that 2 + 2 = 6.

Guess we'll eventually find out who was wrong, huh?

If i'm wrong - no harm done. I'm just dead.

If you're wrong, however ... you'll have an eternity to wish you had listened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Isn't the Christian belief that all people are sinners?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your perception of 'attacks' on Christians is subjective and false – to tell a Christian it is un-Constitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is not to 'attack' that Christian.

That very same 1st Amendment guarantees that Christians have the right to practice their faith. As stated in Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878), government cannot regulate belief, only marriage. So, it stands to reason that any anti-discrimination law that penalizes Christians for refusing to participate in activities that they find sinful is a clear regulation of belief. Imagine my surprise.

Reynolds v United States ruled against the religious practice of polygamy.

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief.

The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The court decision in Reynolds actually went the opposite of what you're claiming it did. Stop lying or stop being ignorant.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, give some relevant examples to prove your point.

After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:

1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.

2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.

3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"

Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."

I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.

4. An additional point. After reading this statement:

"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."

Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.

However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

Name all the legislation that has been introduce that would make it illegal to be an anti gay bigot. Name all the legislation that would prohibit you from openly stating your hatred of gays.

The religious views of anti miscegenationists were not taken into account when the Civil Rights Act was passed and when Loving v Virginia was ruled on. If you owned a business, you had to serve "those people" despite your "deeply held religious views".

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

 

[Flopper]

Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.

As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.

So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?

As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?

I think I can answer this one ....

Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.

Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.

That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?

Seems kinda logical to me ...

When a Christian Pastor and his deacons psychically and verbally abuse a gay couple to prevent them from entering their church, when Christian ministers across the country call gays an abomination in the sight of the lord, when Christian leaders for decades promoted cures for homosexuality that leaves teens in severe depression and suicidal, when Christian missionaries in Uganda fanned the flames of homophobia resulting in a death penalty for homosexuals, you don't think gays should speak out against such in tolerance and abuse.

Anti-homosexuals certainly have a platform to spread their hate against homosexuals in 350,000 congregations throughout the country and every word they say is protected by the constitution.

LOL --- I'm not sure how you can advocate intolerance on one side, and not on the other .... but you've managed to dance on the head of that pin.

What gay intolerance compares to the actions of anti-gay Christians over the last 50 years who approved or tolerated the imprisonment, beating, murder, and humiliation of lesbians and gays when exposed. What exactly have gays done that compares with good Christian parents abandoning their homosexual children, beating them senseless to drive out their gayness, and turning them over to quacks who left them scared for life. I think you'll have to go a long way to show that any intolerance of gays even comes close to the intolerance anti-gay Christians.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh, now we get into the moral equivalency. Flopper, nobody is immune to exercising bigotry or hatred. But one thing Christians IN THIS DAY AND AGE do not do, is beat or imprison homosexuals. The last 50 years be damned. Once again, I must ask: Why don't you feel that way about homosexuals being executed for being what they are in the Middle East? Or are they not as important as the ones here?

The pattern is already there. And the mantra will go "they showed us intolerance, thus we must show intolerance towards them." In other words, an eye for an eye.

 

[Flopper]

Ahh, now we get into the moral equivalency. Flopper, nobody is immune to exercising bigotry or hatred. But one thing Christians IN THIS DAY AND AGE do not do, is beat or imprison homosexuals. The last 50 years be damned. Once again, I must ask: Why don't you feel that way about homosexuals being executed for being what they are in the Middle East? Or are they not as important as the ones here?

The pattern is already there. And the mantra will go "they showed us intolerance, thus we must show intolerance towards them." In other words, an eye for an eye.

Gays are not beaten and imprison today because sodomy laws have been struck down by the courts or repealed, much to the consternation anti-gay Christians and gays have come out of the closet and are standing up for their rights.

I do feel much the same way about the treatment of homosexuals in the Middle East. Muslim fundamentalist are just a lot more intolerant than Christian fundamentalism and they are a higher percentage of the population.

Fundamentalism is a major problem today regardless of whether we are speaking of Muslims, Christians, or Jews. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to some religious doctrine. It always breeds intolerance because fundamentalist can't see the world as other do. There is no compromise. Sin can not be tolerated, nor the sinner.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I do feel much the same way about the treatment of homosexuals in the Middle East. Muslim fundamentalist are just a lot more intolerant than Christian fundamentalism and they are a higher percentage of the population.

I'm sorry, but you're accusing the wrong religion of this barbarity you speak of being committed against homosexuals. We don't approve of gays marrying, but if we don't get our way, so be it, we aren't going to kill them for it.

Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to some religious doctrine. It always breeds intolerance because fundamentalist can't see the world as other do. There is no compromise. Sin can not be tolerated, nor the sinner.

Wrong again. In Christianity, sins can be forgiven. All of us are sinners, and if we/God took the absolute approach that sin must be punished on the spot, we would all be summarily condemned to hell, no path for salvation whatsoever. God forgives infinitely as we sin infinitely, however there are some things that God can't forgive, such as blaspheming the holy spirit.

In Islam, as far as I'm aware, if you commit any of the "major sins" against Allah, you can never be forgiven and will be condemned forever. These sins also carry with them an immediate punishment. Tell me, how are Christian Fundamentalists anything like Muslim Fundamentalists? I happen to be a fundamental Christian, but I also know that I can't go forcing my fundamentals on someone else. I have a desire for everyone to be treated equally and fairly. You don't see me going around beating and forcefully imprisoning people for being gay.

Your comparison is flawed.

Gays are not beaten and imprison today because sodomy laws have been struck down by the courts or repealed, much to the consternation anti-gay Christians and gays have come out of the closet and are standing up for their rights.

It was right for the courts to strike the sodomy laws down, nobody being gay should ever be put in prison. Government should stay out of the bedroom. To wit: I see Christians being threatened with prison time and outrageous fines for sticking up for their religious beliefs in their own businesses. It has come full circle, Flopper, now will you condemn that? Or jump for joy?

However, as far as "rights" go, standing up for gay rights does not include standing on the religious rights of others. It's that simple.

 

[Flopper]

I do feel much the same way about the treatment of homosexuals in the Middle East. Muslim fundamentalist are just a lot more intolerant than Christian fundamentalism and they are a higher percentage of the population.

I'm sorry, but you're accusing the wrong religion of this barbarity you speak of being committed against homosexuals. We don't approve of gays marrying, but if we don't get our way, so be it, we aren't going to kill them for it.

Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to some religious doctrine. It always breeds intolerance because fundamentalist can't see the world as other do. There is no compromise. Sin can not be tolerated, nor the sinner.

Wrong again. In Christianity, sins can be forgiven. All of us are sinners, and if we/God took the absolute approach that sin must be punished on the spot, we would all be summarily condemned to hell, no path for salvation whatsoever. God forgives infinitely as we sin infinitely, however there are some things that God can't forgive, such as blaspheming the holy spirit.

In Islam, as far as I'm aware, if you commit any of the "major sins" against Allah, you can never be forgiven and will be condemned forever. These sins also carry with them an immediate punishment. Tell me, how are Christian Fundamentalists anything like Muslim Fundamentalists? I happen to be a fundamental Christian, but I also know that I can't go forcing my fundamentals on someone else. I have a desire for everyone to be treated equally and fairly. You don't see me going around beating and forcefully imprisoning people for being gay.

Your comparison is flawed.

Gays are not beaten and imprison today because sodomy laws have been struck down by the courts or repealed, much to the consternation anti-gay Christians and gays have come out of the closet and are standing up for their rights.

It was right for the courts to strike the sodomy laws down, nobody being gay should ever be put in prison. Government should stay out of the bedroom. To wit: I see Christians being threatened with prison time and outrageous fines for sticking up for their religious beliefs in their own businesses. It has come full circle, Flopper, now will you condemn that? Or jump for joy?

However, as far as "rights" go, standing up for gay rights does not include standing on the religious rights of others. It's that simple.

Ignoring ideology, the major difference between fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, or Jew is how strictly they interpret scriptures and how strictly they deal with sin. In the past Christians have been just as cruel and strict in dealing with sin as Muslims are today. Essentially,it's a matter of degree and time.

The in tolerance you speak of is not coming from gays but the 55% of the American public who approve of gay marriage. It is with their approval and support that 185 cities and counties and a number of states have passed LGBT anti-discrimination laws, many of which include access to public accommodations. These laws were passed and enforce primarily by heterosexuals, not gays.

You say, "I can't go forcing my fundamentals on someone else." Well that is exactly what you are doing when you oppose gay marriage based on your Christian fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In the past Christians have been just as cruel and strict in dealing with sin as Muslims are today.

In the past. There you go with "in the past." Why do you insist on judging people on their past? We Christians have learned from our past and have done much to rectify our mistakes, yet you still condemn us for our past. We do still own our past, but we have long since set it aside.

You can't see the change, you are too busy looking backwards to notice. The worst Christians do today is oh, saying they oppose gay marriage. The worst Muslims do is execute gays, deny them their rights, imprison them, or treat them like animals. Yet still here you are bashing Christians.

The intolerance you speak of is not coming from gays but the 55% of the American public who approve of gay marriage.

You want to run that by me again? Its gays, and their supporters all over the world.

They've beaten street preachers:

Lesbian Mob Beats Street Preacher at Seattle Gay Pride The Black Sphere TheBlackSphere.net

Attacked old women carrying the cross:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Vandalized churches:

North Carolina Churches Trashed Spray-Painted with Pro-Homosexual Vandalism Christian News Network

And harassed bishops whilst in the midst of prayer (this is my personal favorite, because it is one of the most vile and intolerant things I've seen homosexuals do. Anywhere. It still makes my skin crawl.):



Yet contrary to what you think Christians are as it pertains to homosexuality, this Bishop turned the other cheek. He tolerated them. So that already debunks your Christian intolerance meme. He knows what he believes, he knew what they believed. But not once did he attempt to force his faith on them.

Oh, more gays attacking street preachers:



Are you seeing a pattern yet? There is more than enough evidence here to suggest that a good deal of homosexuals/activists have little to no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians and will do anything to have them extricated from society.

Ahh, and to cement my point, this was a comment made by Jeran Artery of Wyoming Equality, a gay activist group in...Wyoming:

And if you have anything resembling a short term memory:

 

[TemplarKormac]

You say, "I can't go forcing my fundamentals on someone else." Well that is exactly what you are doing when you oppose gay marriage based on your Christian fundamentalist beliefs.

That's interesting seeing how you're sitting there thinking it's okay to dictate my beliefs to me. Wait a minute. Back up. What is it you're doing? Forcing your fundamentals on me.

You hypocrite. Once again, your intolerance is showing.

 

[Andylusion]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.

gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?

Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test

I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.

Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.

If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.

And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.

So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.

gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?

Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test

I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.

Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.

If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.

And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.

So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.

That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.

In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Exactly how are gays being intolerant toward the religious beliefs of others?

Not only gays, liberals too. See below. Examples of liberal and gay activist intolerances towards Christians are listed in chronological order:

November 2004:

"Rove’s re-election strategy was elegantly simple: Scare the bejesus out of Jesusland. F@ggots are headed your way! Satanic Muslims are hiding everywhere! That’s all it took to get Jesusland to do the job. Intellectual conservatives like the National Review staff are flattering themselves if they honestly believe Jesusland cares about conservative thought. The “reality-based” folks are learning that Jesusland doesn’t even care about jobs or the economy. In Jesusland, it’s all the will of Jesus. No job? No money? Daughter got her cl*t pierced? Jesus is just f*cking with you again, testing your faith. Got the cancer? Oh well. Soon you’ll be with Jesus. Reality is no match for a mystical world in which an all-powerful god is constantly toying with every detail of your mundane life, just to see what you’ll do about it. Keep praying and always keep your eye out for homosexuals and terrorists, and you will eventually be rewarded … all you have to do is die, and then it’s SuperJesusLand, where you will be a ghost floating in a magic cloud with all the other ghosts from Jesusland, with Jesus Himself presiding over an Eternal Church Service"

Ken Layne, Wonkette, after John Kerry's defeat to George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election

September 25, 2006

Religion or Reality. Choose. The Smirking Chimp

November 27, 2006

Late Nite FDL The Christian Right is Neither Firedoglake

February 13, 2007

Edwards Campaign Blogger Quits Amid Controversy - ABC News

December 14, 2011



June 7, 2012

New Mexico photographer loses third round of gay discrimination case but attorneys vow fight isn t over Deseret News

March 21, 2013

FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus CBS Miami

May 14, 2013

Franklin Graham IRS targeted us too - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

July 8, 2013

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime Courts Examiner.com

September 6, 2013

Air Force cracking down on Christians Fox News

September 9, 2013

Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese Fox News

September 9, 2013

TODD S AMERICAN DISPATCH Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats protests Fox News

December 8, 2013

Duck Dynasty star suspended for anti-gay remarks - CNN.com

January 14, 2014

First-grader told to stop talking about Bible Fox News

April 3, 2014

Mozilla CEO resigns opposition to gay marriage drew fire Reuters

March 27, 2015

Richland florist fined 1 001 for denying flowers to same-sex couple Local Regional Seattle News Weather Sports Breaking News KOMO News


April 2, 2015

Threat tied to RFRA prompt Indiana pizzeria to close its doors

lol, I guess you believe we should simply get rid of the bill of rights except for the part that supposedly allows Christians to do as they please.

 

[Seawytch]

You can't see the change, you are too busy looking backwards to notice. The worst Christians do today is oh, saying they oppose gay marriage. The worst Muslims do is execute gays, deny them their rights, imprison them, or treat them like animals. Yet still here you are bashing Christians.

We live in America where Muslims don't do the things you describe. Both Christians and Muslims do in other countries, not here. In other countries both Christians and Muslims are imprisoning gays and "treating them like animals".

Again, we live here in the United States where evangelical Christians are the least likely to support marriage equality.

 

[Andylusion]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.

gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?

Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test

I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.

Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.

If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.

And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.

So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.

That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.

In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.

I don't care.

"yeah but but racism and some other stuff blaw blaw blaw...."

Still don't care

"But bigots throughout history blaw blaw blaw..."


Still don't care dude. Sucks to be you huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”

By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”

Actually you're a liar.

No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.

actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.

gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?

Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test

I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.

Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.

If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.

And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.

So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.

That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.

In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.

I don't care.

"yeah but but racism and some other stuff blaw blaw blaw...."

Still don't care

"But bigots throughout history blaw blaw blaw..."


Still don't care dude. Sucks to be you huh?

I think most of us get it. You're unashamedly stupid.