Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

[NYcarbineer]

[MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION]

In the the Supreme Court Case, Van Orden v. Perry U.S. 677, 688 (2005) it ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol did not violate the Constitution. In it, Judge Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion that, "[We] find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

Meaning, that our government cannot be a hostile force against religion of any sort, including but not limited to Christianity. The free exercise clause stops government from favoring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Perhaps if you had any idea the meaning of the First Amendment, you would understand that your beliefs are not the standard.

If the Court stops that, how can they favor a religious business owner's rights over a gay customer's rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

An objective person would recognize that every constitutional right has a limit. Free speech has a limit, freedom of the press has a limit, the right to bear arms has a limit,

and religious freedom has a limit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You chose to reinstate institutionalized, government sanctioned, anti-Semitism.

I got it. Maybe others have a different answer.

You did not read or did not comprehend what I posted. Which is it?

You said the businessman could refuse service to anyone he chooses, thus, you sided with him in refusing to serve a Jew, because he was a Jew.

That is an act of anti-Semitism. You chose to make it government sanctioned.

If you wish to dispute that, do so with some elaboration beyond repeatedly badgering me with a useless question about whether or not I read your post.

God and goddess, this is like talking to a mental patient! Supporting someone's right to do business (or not) with whomever he chooses IS NOT THE SAME as agreeing with his choices!

 

[SAYIT]

Easily countered.

Tolerance and equality are indeed important concepts in America, but if you cant deal with others practicing their beliefs in their own business, maybe you are the one who shouldn't publicly engage or do business with them. My rationality is just fine. It's this double standard on tolerance and equality that I'm having an issue with.

Funny, you don't seem to have a prob with those Blue Laws. The answer remains the same ... the law of the land, just like those Blue Laws deny Sunday sales, denies any public place the right to discriminate. Sorry.

Just as you have no problem forcing those of faith from acting based on their religious beliefs in own businesses.

No one is forcing you to be gay but if you want to operate in the public domain you will need to leave your bigotry and intolerance behind. They are illegal and for good reason.

I have no problem with those Blue Laws, because they don't discriminate against anyone.

Really? Are you so blinded by your good Christian self-righteousness that you can't see that those who do not keep your Sabbath holy are denied a working day?

The Supreme Court says they don't. And hey, who isn't against a day of rest from the monotony of all work and no play? Under the free exercise clause, the "law of the land" prohibits free exercise of religion. It's plain as day.

No need to apologize. This is a tough issue.

Indeed, and the same legal system that passed those Blue Laws now has anti-discrimination laws. Looks like allowing the gov't to "honor" your Sabbath day has come back to bite you. It's time to step into the 21st Century.

 

[Coyote]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discrimminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discrimminate?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny, you don't seem to have a prob with those Blue Laws. The answer remains the same ... the law of the land, just like those Blue Laws deny Sunday sales, denies any public place the right to discriminate. Sorry.

Just as you have no problem forcing those of faith from acting based on their religious beliefs in own businesses.

No one is forcing you to be gay but if you want to operate in the public domain you will need to leave your bigotry and intolerance behind. They are illegal and for good reason.

I have no problem with those Blue Laws, because they don't discriminate against anyone.

Really? Are you so blinded by your good Christian self-righteousness that you can't see that those who do not keep your Sabbath holy are denied a working day?

The Supreme Court says they don't. And hey, who isn't against a day of rest from the monotony of all work and no play? Under the free exercise clause, the "law of the land" prohibits free exercise of religion. It's plain as day.

No need to apologize. This is a tough issue.

Indeed, and the same legal system that passed those Blue Laws now has anti-discrimination laws. Looks like allowing the gov't to "honor" your Sabbath day has come back to bite you. It's time to step into the 21st Century.

Interestingly enough, unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, you'll have to come back to the 21st century with the rest of us. They aren't honoring anything. You have the same right not to run your business on any other day of the week if you don't want to.

 

[BDBoop]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discrimminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discrimminate?

One wonders.

Might be a book of the Bible I'm not aware of, where everything in the actual Bible is discounted and twisted until it bears no resemblance to the actual word of God.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discriminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discriminate?

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If Homosexuals want to be accepted, they need to some accepting. Otherwise this perpetual cycle of hatred and intolerance will continue. Nobody likes to be forced to do anything, but somehow one group can foist themselves and their lifestyles on another with utter impunity. What would you rather do, breed further hostility? Or come to a mutual understanding?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

My bigotry? What about yours? Forcing Christian proprietors to tolerate and serve people against their beliefs isn't bigotry? Here's the deal, your hypocrisy ends where my rights begin. Don't like it? That's simply too bad.

Remember, don't come crying to the government when the exact same thing is done to you.

Christian proprietors already serve people who go against their beliefs. They just seem to have a special hateful spot for homosexuals.

If christian business owners truly cared about not serving people who go against their beliefs, they would need to have a questionnaire outside their door that you had to pass before you could shop there.

Have you ever had a divorce?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever stolen something?
Ect
Ect

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.

Me? I'm a vegetarian, I could give two shits about Chic-Fil-A either way.

 

[BDBoop]

Objectively speaking...Jesus didn't discriminate. He served everyone didn't he? He turned no one away.

Why would Christians choose to discriminate?

He turned Satan away, did he not? He cast out demons in his name, did he not? Even still he was merciful even to the demons who begged him to let them possess a herd of pigs. He let them. Jesus made the discrimination between righteousness and sinfulness did he not? Funny how you have this idyllic view of Jesus, but have no clue what he was actually like. He cast the moneychangers out of the synagogue with a whip, exclaiming "this is my father's house, not a den of thieves!" Should he not be condemned for kicking people out of a place of worship?

No, he did a lot of discriminating. If he was all accepting there would have been no point for him to come to Earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind, Coyote. Nor would he have performed his miracles, fed the hungry or healed the sick or afflicted. Sorry, he isn't the type of person you're portraying him to be.

Oh. Wow.

Talk about twisting - and my pastor once said "When you twist the truth, it ceases to BE the truth." Talk about words in action here.

 

[Silhouette]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

Keyword: "beliefs". And you are correct. LGBT is a system of beliefs and behaviors. ie: it's a cult.

Here is a statement on how one set of beliefs is dominating the other and how one set of beliefs is making itself be practiced and worshipped as a matter of law in public schools and in the privacy of a therapist's office with his client, no less...:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ess-owners-to-refuse-service-to-gays-156.html Well straight guys don't go for men, so yeah, I see your point. But it makes you wonder why "lesbian" women go for manly lesbians. Something ain't right there. There is definitely some closet hetero stuff crammed way back in the dark, inaccessible and forbidden etiology behind the dogma of the church of LGBT.

Imagine for a minute if a hetero guy was attracted to women who dressed like men, acted like men etc. gays would INSTANTLY proclaim him as a closet homosexual. There would be no debate about it. It simply would be declared as fact. Yet when I point out how many of their ranks, about half of them actually, are attracted to all the trappings of the opposite gender, yet proclaim themselves "gay", you have to apply the law of equals here and say, "no, actually, they are heterosexual and just have issues coming to terms with that".

Equally mysterious is the law in California forbidding minors from discussing [free speech] with their therapist their own wishes and plans to throw off unwanted homophilia, even when that is gotten by having been molested. Yet simultaneously, the church of LGBT holds evangelizing events enticing teens and even younger who are "bi-curious" [all kids are sexually curious and forming their identities at that age] to "come and join the fun!", with cookies, cake, punch, bands and activities all set up to complete the enticement.

Also, tons and tons and tons of funding, groups and outreach entities exist to help coerce teens and younger "out of the closet" to "discover they are gay". All this with arguably truckloads of coercion and suggestion involved. But if a kid himself wants to rid his compulsive homosexuality after being "tampered with" by being molested...un,uh...no way! That's forbidden by law.

So properly, the cult of LGBT has already made indoctrinization of their dogma a matter of secular law. You see, they don't want themselves declared a behavioral grouping...and therefore properly a "cult" [they call themselves a "subculture" or refer to "culture wars"], because if people recognize that they are, then what they're doing with laws becomes a matter of separation of church and state. And of course the cannot simultaneously lobby to remove christian practices in schools at the same time they require by law that kids in California celebrate their messiah/gay pedophile Harvey Milk each May 22nd.

Dogma is dogma. Learn to recognize it when it's mauling your kids at school and in the therapist's office... and "bi-curious" events with cake, cookies, bands and FUN! .....might also want to brush up on law enforcement profiles of pedophiles and what they refer to as "grooming behaviors" when pedophiles are targeting the kids they're after to eventually molest. Often those grooming behaviors including enticements of cake, cookies, entertainment and "FUN"...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Christian proprietors already serve people who go against their beliefs. They just seem to have a special hateful spot for homosexuals.

If christian business owners truly cared about not serving people who go against their beliefs, they would need to have a questionnaire outside their door that you had to pass before you could shop there.

Have you ever had a divorce?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever stolen something?
Ect
Ect

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.

Me? I'm a vegetarian, I could give two shits about Chic-Fil-A either way.

Then why make an issue out of it?

 

[American4Americ]

As far as Christian beliefs and homosexuality go, equality is something that both sides need to observe. Tolerance likewise, should work on an equal plane; respect for beliefs on both sides should be equal, but without one or the other sacrificing what they are or believe in for the other. Gay or Christian, it is wrong to bully one or the other into submission. I am a Christian who inherently believes homosexuality is wrong, but on the other hand, what right does that give me to force a homosexual to change him or herself because of it? It isn't my right to change them but God's if he so chooses. He created all of mankind, so it stands to reason that he has the ability to change them as well.

But it also stands to reason that a levelheaded homosexual shouldn't expect a Christian to change what he believes to sate their demands for tolerance and equality either. To change the beliefs anyone in my opinion, changes the essence of who they are. What right does any man or woman have to forcibly mold another person to fit their idyllic views of their society? But back to equality: Forcing a person to serve a homosexual couple against what he/she believes and adheres to is no better than if the converse were true. Forcing someone to exchange their beliefs for the tolerance and acceptance of another set of beliefs is wrong. There is a fine line between service and belief that needs to be addressed.

When running a business means you have to sacrifice your beliefs to keep the peace, what good is running the business? Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" When you can't run your business and hold on to your beliefs, are you truly happy? Are you being allowed to live your life the way you see fit? If not, then the laws designed by our government to ensure equality among men only breed discord and malcontent from one group to another, and vice versa. As noted author Tom Robbins says about laws: "Laws, it is said, are for the protection of the people. It's unfortunate that there are no statistics on the number of lives that are clobbered yearly as a result of laws: outmoded laws; laws that found their way onto the books as a result of ignorance, hysteria or political haymaking; antilife laws; biased laws; laws that pretend that reality is fixed and nature is definable; laws that deny people the right to refuse protection. A survey such as that could keep a dozen dull sociologists out of mischief for months."

Why must one person's happiness come at the sacrifice of another's?

Who are you to lecture me on "equality" or "tolerance"?


Oh, and by the way, regarding "Is this what the founders meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"", their observance of these principles were not exactly keen, at least regarding the Shaycites, and their laughable abuses during the second administration.

 

[BDBoop]

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.

Me? I'm a vegetarian, I could give two shits about Chic-Fil-A either way.

Then why make an issue out of it?

He didn't. You just took a shot in the dark and hoped it would stick.

 

[BDBoop]

Love this. I'm really fed-up with christians giving themselves permission to assume the judgment seat of Moses.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.

Me? I'm a vegetarian, I could give two shits about Chic-Fil-A either way.

Then why make an issue out of it?

I didn't. You're the one who brought it up.

 

[SAYIT]

Just as you have no problem forcing those of faith from acting based on their religious beliefs in own businesses.

No one is forcing you to be gay but if you want to operate in the public domain you will need to leave your bigotry and intolerance behind. They are illegal and for good reason.

I have no problem with those Blue Laws, because they don't discriminate against anyone.

Really? Are you so blinded by your good Christian self-righteousness that you can't see that those who do not keep your Sabbath holy are denied a working day?

The Supreme Court says they don't. And hey, who isn't against a day of rest from the monotony of all work and no play? Under the free exercise clause, the "law of the land" prohibits free exercise of religion. It's plain as day.

No need to apologize. This is a tough issue.

Indeed, and the same legal system that passed those Blue Laws now has anti-discrimination laws. Looks like allowing the gov't to "honor" your Sabbath day has come back to bite you. It's time to step into the 21st Century.

Interestingly enough, unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, you'll have to come back to the 21st century with the rest of us. They aren't honoring anything. You have the same right not to run your business on any other day of the week if you don't want to.

Good God, T-K ... this isn't about the Blue Laws but rather about the abuse of our legal system by good Christians to tilt the board in their favor. You are clearly angry about that same legal system being used to level the playfield. Discrimination in the form of bigotry and intolerance are no longer legal and for good reason. Get over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

Given your hateful, ignorant position that gay Americans should accept having their civil rights denied without objection because they ‘could have it worse’ in some other country renders you unqualified to address either equality or tolerance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My bigotry? What about yours? Forcing Christian proprietors to tolerate and serve people against their beliefs isn't bigotry? Here's the deal, your hypocrisy ends where my rights begin. Don't like it? That's simply too bad.

Remember, don't come crying to the government when the exact same thing is done to you.

Christian proprietors already serve people who go against their beliefs. They just seem to have a special hateful spot for homosexuals.

If christian business owners truly cared about not serving people who go against their beliefs, they would need to have a questionnaire outside their door that you had to pass before you could shop there.

Have you ever had a divorce?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever stolen something?
Ect
Ect

And who is it that has a special hateful spot for Christians? You went after Chic-Fil-A for their hatred of homosexuals, yet they serve and employ them. Because it's their choice. This argument of yours is incredulous on it's face.

And you continue to be crippled by your ignorance, particularly with this ‘rights begin, rights end’ nonsense.

Private citizens refusing to patronize a business because they object to that business’ political agenda has nothing to do with legal, Constitutional public accommodations laws enacted by a given jurisdiction; a business owner’s right to religious liberty is in no way compromised, restricted, or otherwise violated as a consequence of public accommodations laws, as that is not the primary focus of such laws.

If one is going to run a business he must understand and accept the fact that he’ll be subject to appropriate, necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies – including public accommodations laws.