Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[Uncensored2008]

It's the same argument. you're saying it's acceptable to limit services to a customer based on an arbitrary characteristic of that customer.

Either that is discrimination or it isn't. Which do you believe it is?

Because you are a Communist, you cannot grasp the distinction between private business and government.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the old Republic held that all would be afforded equal treatment under the law. Because a bus in Atlanta is a GOVERNMENT apparatus, offering different service violated the 14th - just as ruling that a Christian MUST offer a cake that meets the specifications provided by queers, but that a queer need not offer a cake that meets the specification of Christians.

One law for Christians, a better law for queers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Christians have never apologized for slavery, nor for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

See how easy that is?

Meanwhile- how many supporters of the Confederacy today are Democrats?

No church had any power other than argument. Your party took up arms and made laws.

Reality is hard for you.

 

[Syriusly]

It's the same argument. you're saying it's acceptable to limit services to a customer based on an arbitrary characteristic of that customer.

Either that is discrimination or it isn't. Which do you believe it is?

Because you are a Communist, you cannot grasp the distinction between private business and government.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the old Republic held that all would be afforded equal treatment under the law. Because a bus in Atlanta is a GOVERNMENT apparatus, offering different service violated the 14th - just as ruling that a Christian MUST offer a cake that meets the specifications provided by queers, but that a queer need not offer a cake that meets the specification of Christians.

One law for Christians, a better law for queers.

Which 'queer' doesn't need to offer a cake to a Christian?

You quoted a case where a Catholic baker- sexual preference unknown- refused to print something that she found offensive- not because the buyers were Christian.

 

[Syriusly]

Christians have never apologized for slavery, nor for starting a civil war to continue slavery.

See how easy that is?

Meanwhile- how many supporters of the Confederacy today are Democrats?

No church had any power other than argument. Your party took up arms and made laws.

Reality is hard for you.

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[Moonglow]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You mean having sex is wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You mean having sex is wrong?

I mean you've huffed enough oven cleaner for one day.

 

[Moonglow]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You mean having sex is wrong?

I mean you've huffed enough oven cleaner for one day.

Thanks for the shit,,, man....

 

[paperview]

Not only that, I'm reminded of the conservative Op-ed columnist from the conservative National Review who thought Chelsea Clinton and her whole family should be be assassinated in 2001.

Like an Op-Edder is the be-all and end-all.

Link?

The National Review, after keeping it online for years and years, finally deleted it. It was pretty disgusting.

Here is Sullivan quoting a piece of it:

DERBYSHIRE AWARD WINNER 2001: "Chelsea is a Clinton.

She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past � I�m not arguing for despotism s a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble � recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin�s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an �enemy of the people. The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, �clan liability�. In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished �to the ninth degree�; that is, everyone in the offender�s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations down, to the great-great-grandparents, would also be killed.

� � John Derbyshire, in National Review Online."

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

Do your own research from here, rabbitboy. No surprise you never heard of it.

I dont see any call for killing Chelsea Clinton. Looks like you overplayed your hand and proved you are stooopid.

Of course you don't. It was all a *joke* about killing the first family.

There was not even a joke about killing the first family. There was some historical information. Period.
Looks like another fail from you. You're just racking them up this week, arentcha?

The NRO eventually fired him. What a shitdog he was. Keep beating that drum, lil boy.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have already said that you are free not to care, as am I. But I am not the one complaining that the little kid in the playground is beating me up because he won't let me hit him anymore. I am fine with you not caring and I am fine with you being afraid. Whatever makes you happy. The important thing is that you keep vocalizing your position - which provides a far better argument for the LGBT community than they could ever make for themselves.

That's because they have no argument. "I'm a *** and you should think it's normal" isn't an arugment. It's whining.

I believe the argument is "I'm a citizen of the United States and am entitled to all of the rights of a citizen". And then you come up with the above to demonstrate the quality of the counter argument. It's been very effective for them. They should thank you.

The problem is they demand as a right that isn't one. They have a right to vote, a fair trial, free speech, to own guns, not to incriminate oneself, etc. They are specifically stated in the Constitution. I'm yet to find where marraige is written.

14th amendment. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, then that becomes moot. Until then, every citizen should have the right to make that determination for themselves without governmental interference. A Conservative would understand that.

So you're saying that a right is absolute and without restrictions? The 2nd amendment says my right to own guns shall not be infringed. Does that mean I can own whatever type gun I want?

I am not saying a right is absolute. You will notice I limit it to adults and I will limit it further to competent adults. But if you are going to limit it, then the reason should be valid. "Because I don't like them" is not a valid reason. You wouldn't accept it if it was applied to you, why should others accept it when applied to them?

 

[PratchettFan]

I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.

Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.

I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.

You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.

Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.

You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.

I said those on the far right. Do try to follow what I actually say. I know it makes it harder for you, but make an attempt.

Let's figure out your point.
I fully support freedom of speech under the first amendment. How is that not a Conservative value?
I fully support the right of every American citizen to equal protection of the law. How is that not a Conservative value?

I specifically said the far right. Try to read. It's only three letters in far.

It's not about whether or not someone supports the freedom, it's about how many apply that support in a hypocritical manner Liberals and those like you say tolerance of other's views should take place. However, when someone exercises their freedom of speech in a way you and Liberals don't agree with, you find plenty of excuses as to why you don't have to be tolerant of those view. More than once I've been told that not being tolerant of a bigoted view isn't intolerance. The interesting thing is that the view someone held toward what they called bigotry was done in a bigoted manner.

The concept of equal protection under the law isn't the issue but how equal is defined and applied. I find that many will argue for same sex marriage using the 14th amendment as the basis of their argument. They claim that two consenting adults, of age, that love each other shouldn't be denied marriage. In other words, their argument is based on the premise of equal treatment. A lot go further to say that opposition to such marriages don't have valid reasons in the opposition really meaning they disagree with those reasons are the source where that reasoning comes from. However, ask them whether or not they support a brother/sister marriage and the same ones will quickly say no despite both being consenting adults, of age, that apparently love each other. In addition, while they'll demand the reasons they provide are valid and demand people accept them. What they're saying is that any marriage other than the types they approve of can be restricted if they say so.

Actually, you said "You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given." You didn't use the word far in describing what I was saying.

What you are claiming liberals are doing you are doing. My position is that the writer had the right to say what he said, I was free not to care and the churches were free to do as they please. I said that plainly. Others said it was sedition. Yet you disagree with me and support them. How is that supporting freedom of speech? And if you don't support free speech, how is that a Conservative value?

You aren't discussing this with some ethereal "them", you are discussing it with me. As long as the government is in the marriage business the laws need to be applied to all equally. So long as the parties are adults, it is up to them how to live - not the government. Brother and sister, three women and two men, whatever. Not my cup of tea but I don't have to live in the relationship. The place of the government is to issue the license and resolve any disputes if it doesn't work out, not to dictate lifestyles. How is that not a Conservative value?

Try looking at post #333.

Define equally. That's the problem with the "them". They claim they want equality then when posed with other types of marriages, find all sorts of reasons why thing should be unequal. While you say it's not your cup of tea, you also say allow adults to do it. What I find with Liberals is that they support equality as long as it's a concept they support. Let them oppose it and equality is no longer important.

You claim I am doing what I says Liberals are doing. The difference is that Liberals claim I'm wrong for doing it then turn around and do the same thing claiming it's OK.

Since you are doing what you claim the Liberals are doing, I fail to see the difference.

I have told you that I am not a Liberal. If you want to argue with a Liberal then there are plenty of them here.

 

[ogibillm]

It's the same argument. you're saying it's acceptable to limit services to a customer based on an arbitrary characteristic of that customer.

Either that is discrimination or it isn't. Which do you believe it is?

Because you are a Communist, you cannot grasp the distinction between private business and government.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the old Republic held that all would be afforded equal treatment under the law. Because a bus in Atlanta is a GOVERNMENT apparatus, offering different service violated the 14th - just as ruling that a Christian MUST offer a cake that meets the specifications provided by queers, but that a queer need not offer a cake that meets the specification of Christians.

One law for Christians, a better law for queers.

We're talking about public accomodation laws.

(Some of) Those say you can't discriminate based on faith or sexual orientation.

Can you give an example of a patron discriminated against for their faith?

 

[Syriusly]

You really are stretching for this.

So- in your opinion- did the Confederate States have the right to secede from the Union?

Irrelevant.

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And yet you are afraid to answer the question.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are entitled to not care.

Then why do gay liberals care so much?

 

[PratchettFan]

You are entitled to not care.

Then why do gay liberals care so much?

Do you mean why do the refuse to continue to be bullied? I guess you will have to ask them. Some opinion piece suggests churches should change their attitudes and people here are screaming about the Constitution and sedition. But you call them dehumanizing names and demand they be treated as second class citizens and you wonder why they get all upset. I have to admire that level of obtuseness. The blinders required for that must weigh a ton.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We're talking about public accomodation laws.

(Some of) Those say you can't discriminate based on faith or sexual orientation.

Can you give an example of a patron discriminated against for their faith?

We're talking about equal protection under the law. When the same law is applied differently based on the favorability of the group identification of those involved, as is evident here, then the equal protection clause is clearly violated.

 

[PratchettFan]

We're talking about public accomodation laws.

(Some of) Those say you can't discriminate based on faith or sexual orientation.

Can you give an example of a patron discriminated against for their faith?

We're talking about equal protection under the law. When the same law is applied differently based on the favorability of the group identification of those involved, as is evident here, then the equal protection clause is clearly violated.

Exactly. Which is why laws against SSM are being overturned.

 

[ogibillm]

We're talking about public accomodation laws.

(Some of) Those say you can't discriminate based on faith or sexual orientation.

Can you give an example of a patron discriminated against for their faith?

We're talking about equal protection under the law. When the same law is applied differently based on the favorability of the group identification of those involved, as is evident here, then the equal protection clause is clearly violated.

you're right. now can you give us an example of that happening?