Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[WorldWatcher]

Of course you are but you shouldn't be. That's why lovers of freedom and liberty are trying to get rid of these oppressive and tyrannical laws the left wing nutters imposed on everyone.

RFRA's don't attempt to get rid of the laws. They leave the laws in place but provide special privileges to be exempt from the law if someone claims religion as the reason for denying equal access to goods and service.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Personally, I think trying to force Christian bakers to provide cake is a strategic mistake. Without it, the Christians are left with no ash and sack cloth to drape themselves in. As gay marriage

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you. In 37 of 50 States, it includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

You disagree.

Um...so what?

 

[Skylar]

Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

Right wing Christians feel their right to hate is being compromised.

ROFLMNAO!

(Reader, the above 'would-be contribution' is evidence of the subsequent 'reasoning' which is manifest by the mental disorder that presents through sexual deviancy. Note how such concludes a non sequitur, which the bearer presents as 'reason'. Yes... that is insanity, of the first order. And No... there is no 'right' to present insanity as sound reason. And that is because insanity is the detachment from reality, which is represented as reality. Thus such represents that which is NOT TRUE as Truth. And where one advises and individual that something which is NOT TRUE as truth, one injures that individual through the usurpation of the means of that individual to make a sound decision... thus promoting the likelihood that they will further injure themselves. Such is therefore axiomatically IMMORAL.)

This is the same tired argument you always offer us, Keyes. You have no other. ...

OH! How sweet. You've once again come to offer your customary tired deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Its my customary challenge to your assumptions, logic and argument. And your customary rout, fleeing with your tail between your legs, bizarrely declaring victory as you run.

Your subjective opinion isn't 'objective truth'. You can't get around that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Since when is food and drink provided at the wedding itself?

Since the guests arent there with the minister and couple I guess the guests dont participate either.
The spin on the Left is dizzying.

There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?

And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"

The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?

No you are not.

If I am watching the game on television, then I am participating in the viewership of televised reproduction of the game. Which sets me as approving of such through the concept: "fan", which is to say that through my participation in the viewership of the event, I cause by my belief and/or emotional support for the overall public support of the event to become stronger or more widespread.

Now, if the NFL sues me and forces me to come to their stadium and sell my baked goods, then at that point I would be a participant in the event itself. Which would result in a massive firefight... and at some point, my own personal worldly demise. But I would leave this world, exercising my responsibility to sustain my means to exercise my rights and in so doing, defending the means of others to exercise their own rights, in that those who may have been considering forcing others to into servitude would likely be inclined to check if the individual was a committed American before they tried such and where they couldn't be sure, they'd likely decide to 'go another way'.

Of course, as is often the case, it seems that being PROTESTED by the Deviant Cult now results in the world pouring money on ya... so, given the nature of evil, I expect to be hearing less and less of that nonsense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you. In 37 of 50 States...

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE SUBJECTED TO THE ILLICIT DECISION BY THE LEFTISTS IN THE JUDICIARY, WHO OVERTURNED THE MAJORITY OF VOTES, BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, WHO ELECTED THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO VOTED TO PASS BILLS IN THE MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES, SUSTAINING THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, WHICH WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... .

Yet there YOU are deceitfully claiming that the majority of the people support your positions, when in TRUTH, THUS IN REALITY: a half dozen Leftist PROPONENTS of The Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, who sit upon the federal bench support... are the core of support with regard to those states... as it is the illicitly use of their power which OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, WHO REJECT YOUR POSITION.

(Reader, what you see in the above cited contributors profession, is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to MISLEAD: YOU!)

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Says you. In 37 of 50 States...

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE SUBJECTED TO THE ILLICIT DECISION BY THE LEFTISTS IN THE JUDICIARY, WHO OVERTURNED THE MAJORITY OF VOTES, BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, WHO ELECTED THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO VOTED TO PASS BILLS IN THE MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES, SUSTAINING THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, WHICH WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... .

Rights can't be voted away. Nor can equal protection be violated by the States. As all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Any law that violates those guarantees is invalid.

Which is why in 44 of 46 cases, the federal judiciary overturned gay marriage bans for violating constitutional guarantees. And the Supreme Court preserved every single such ruling. While refusing stay to every single state that sought to preserve such gay marriage bans.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

And in 37 of 50 States, marriage includes one man and one man....or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman.

Get used to the idea.

Yet there YOU are deceitfully claiming that the majority of the people support your positions, when in TRUTH, THUS IN REALITY: a half dozen Leftist PROPONENTS of The Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, who sit upon the federal bench support... are the core of support with regard to those states... as it is the illicitly use of their power which OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, WHO REJECT YOUR POSITION.

Your subjective opinion is neither 'truth' nor 'reality'. Its just your opinion. Your entire argument is the same tired schtick: you desperately trying to get us to accept whatever you choose to believe as absolute and irrefutable truth.

Nope. Your subjective opinion is not objective truth. You can't get around that.

 

[bendog]

Civil Rights

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

 

[Skylar]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

The government is certainly capable of protecting rights. As the overturn of interracial marriage bans demonstrated. And as the federal judiciary's near perfect record of overturning gay marriage bans also shows.

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone.

The government has powers. And it can exercise those powers to preserve and protect rights. Read the 14th amendment. Specifically, section 1.

You may find it illuminating.

 

[bendog]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Good to see you followed the link to the polling site, not. The polling site gave it that title, not me.

 

[bodecea]

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Nobody?

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

You can't call it "peaceful protesting" either. There were also violence proposing tweets, i.e. "burn it down."

refusing to serve anyone for any reason can be considered bigotry, the real question is, without a overriding compelling interest, why should the government care?

Tweets are traceable...where are the arrests?

 

[bodecea]

Says you. In 37 of 50 States...

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE SUBJECTED TO THE ILLICIT DECISION BY THE LEFTISTS IN THE JUDICIARY, WHO OVERTURNED THE MAJORITY OF VOTES, BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, WHO ELECTED THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO VOTED TO PASS BILLS IN THE MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES, SUSTAINING THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, WHICH WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... .

Yet there YOU are deceitfully claiming that the majority of the people support your positions, when in TRUTH, THUS IN REALITY: a half dozen Leftist PROPONENTS of The Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, who sit upon the federal bench support... are the core of support with regard to those states... as it is the illicitly use of their power which OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, WHO REJECT YOUR POSITION.

(Reader, what you see in the above cited contributors profession, is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to MISLEAD: YOU!)

See how that works?

Your yelling doesn't change the law. Rant all you want....I expect you'll be ranting even more in June.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Good to see you followed the link to the polling site, not. The polling site gave it that title, not me.

I don't follow links ... from Leftists. It turns out that trusting those who advocate for immorality is the fast lane to destruction.

LOL! But in fairness to you, given your Relativist nature, there was no way you could have known that.

 

[rdean]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yes -- they do.

Our government is an extension of our will, the will of the people.


Public accommodations are something we, as Americans, believe should be open and available to all.

That is what we value. That is our will.

That is how our country works.


The whole "religious freedom" b.s. was weak when it was used for segregation.

These so-called "christians" pick and choose what they believe based on their own fears and insecurities.

exactly.

If serving the public equally will cause a crisis of faith then don't open a business that serves the public.

so basically "screw you" to any people of faith.

Google
What do people of faith say?

 

[rdean]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Good to see you followed the link to the polling site, not. The polling site gave it that title, not me.

I don't follow links ... from Leftists. It turns out that trusting those who advocate for immorality is the fast lane to destruction.

LOL! But in fairness to you, given your Relativist nature, there was no way you could have known that.

In other words, you prefer stupid. Got it.

 

[bendog]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Good to see you followed the link to the polling site, not. The polling site gave it that title, not me.

I don't follow links ... from Leftists. It turns out that trusting those who advocate for immorality is the fast lane to destruction.

LOL! But in fairness to you, given your Relativist nature, there was no way you could have known that.

I'm well aware of your intentional ignorance

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In other words, you prefer stupid. Got it.

LOL! Anyone need anything else?

 

[bodecea]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Incorrect, as usual. The government protects our civil rights. Now, I know that burns your butt to see the government finally stepping up to the plate to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Probably why you are yelling.

 

[martybegan]

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Nobody?

Agreed, as long as such protests are peaceful and truthful, unlike the cluster-f$%k that we saw with Memories Pizza.

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

You can't call it "peaceful protesting" either. There were also violence proposing tweets, i.e. "burn it down."

refusing to serve anyone for any reason can be considered bigotry, the real question is, without a overriding compelling interest, why should the government care?

Tweets are traceable...where are the arrests?

So your logic is its only violent if it results in an arrest? I guess the victims of jack the ripper died peacefully in their sleep.

 

[martybegan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yes -- they do.

Our government is an extension of our will, the will of the people.


Public accommodations are something we, as Americans, believe should be open and available to all.

That is what we value. That is our will.

That is how our country works.


The whole "religious freedom" b.s. was weak when it was used for segregation.

These so-called "christians" pick and choose what they believe based on their own fears and insecurities.

exactly.

If serving the public equally will cause a crisis of faith then don't open a business that serves the public.

so basically "screw you" to any people of faith.

Google
What do people of faith say?

No. How about you post a reply with some substance?