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

[PredFan]

]You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

I did too dumbass, read it again.

All you did was say you couldn't dumb it down enough. You never said what the difference was between providing a cake and providng a ride.

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Yes I did, but let me try one more time to break through to you.

Providing a cake isn't the problem, when the store owner has to put two plastic men together or women, and decorate it with two men's names and deliver it to the wedding, that is participating in the ceremony. The driver of a cab is not participating in the drinking of the alcohol and is only selling the ride. Just like the cake seller sells a cake to some person without asking for sexual orientation first.

The two are not at all the same. Clear?

 

[paperview]

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

^ Stoopid on a stick.

Yes, yes you are. Prove it every exchange where you get your ass kicked 10 ways from Sunday.

Every day I watch your ass get kicked all over the place by people that have far more patience than I to respond to your idiocy.

It's pretty much a given, if Rabbi says it, it's either a lie, or you can take it the bank - the opposite is true.

 

[The Rabbi]

]You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

I did too dumbass, read it again.

All you did was say you couldn't dumb it down enough. You never said what the difference was between providing a cake and providng a ride.

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Yes I did, but let me try one more time to break through to you.

Providing a cake isn't the problem, when the store owner has to put two plastic men together or women, and decorate it with two men's names and deliver it to the wedding, that is participating in the ceremony. The driver of a cab is not participating in the drinking of the alcohol and is only selling the ride. Just like the cake seller sells a cake to some person without asking for sexual orientation first.

The two are not at all the same. Clear?

Lefties have trouble distinguishing two similar but different cases. Because they're stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

^ Stoopid on a stick.

Yes, yes you are. Prove it every exchange where you get your ass kicked 10 ways from Sunday.

Every day I watch your ass get kicked all over the place.

It's pretty much a given, if Rabbi says it, it's either a lie, or you can take it the bank - the opposite is true.

LOL. You wish.
Are you still defending your "a permit is really a right" nonsense?

 

[bripat9643]

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

 

[Rambunctious]

If one wants to lead a gay lifestyle and thinks or believes he or she is gay then knock yourself out. I do not care what you do in the privacy of your life but when you set out to take down an American business owner because they do not agree with your chosen path, that is where I draw the line. Mafia tactics are out of bounds. There are plenty of bakery's and other ways to get along in our nation. If you would rather take the McCarthyism path then do so at your own risk. You are not supported to go there in America no matter what MSNBC says and it will harm your cause irreparably.

 

[PredFan]

]You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

I did too dumbass, read it again.

All you did was say you couldn't dumb it down enough. You never said what the difference was between providing a cake and providng a ride.

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Yes I did, but let me try one more time to break through to you.

Providing a cake isn't the problem, when the store owner has to put two plastic men together or women, and decorate it with two men's names and deliver it to the wedding, that is participating in the ceremony. The driver of a cab is not participating in the drinking of the alcohol and is only selling the ride. Just like the cake seller sells a cake to some person without asking for sexual orientation first.

The two are not at all the same. Clear?

Lefties have trouble distinguishing two similar but different cases. Because they're stupid.

Agreed. It's not a bad thing to be ignorant, but when you refuse to learn, that is stupidity.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game

It’s firmly in the Christian ethos to identify as being persecuted. Jesus stood up to the establishment and was tortured and murdered for it. To be a Christian is to worship a martyr.


So it’s been easy for America’s religious leaders/politicians to convince the devout they too are under assault. That in a country of 300 million, where the vast majority identify as Christian, where there’s never been a non-Christian president, where crosses are as ubiquitous as trees—Christians are being victimized for their convictions. That the almost entirely unanimously self-identified Christian government is going to suddenly go all ancient Rome on the followers of Jesus Christ.


It’s a way believers get manipulated. It makes them malleable and willing to go along with any hysteria that flares up. This week it’s religious freedom. If you listen to those sending out emails asking for donations—it’s under attack!!


How are Christians being attacked? How are their rights being diminished? Apparently if they own a business they’re being forced by Big Government to serve homosexuals. This is what oppression looks like: owning a business and making money off people your religion condemns. GASP! [...]

Apparently, American Christians are now being told liberty is a zero-sum game. That if LGBTs have more rights, Christians then have fewer; if homosexuals are equal, then Christians are second-class citizens; the more for a minority, the less for the majority. They’re being told the most important part of their faith isn’t charity to all—it’s ostracization for some.

Slavery is in the Bible. There are even instructions on how to treat one’s slaves. Slavery is not legal—and even the most devout can’t own any human beings. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Segregation was fueled by the belief that black people had the mark of Cain. Segregation is not legal. Are Christian’s less free because of this?


Mutilations for punishments are abundant in the Bible for various crimes including theft and being a prostitute. This has been a practice of the Christian World for ages. The Eighth Amendment barred them; they are illegal. Are Christians less free?

No, and no one would dare to make that argument. Those battles have been won. American Christians live with a secular government that “forces” them to not live biblically every day and largely they’re fine with it.


But homosexuality is an abomination—an affront to god—according to the Bible, you say?


Usury is condemned as an abomination in the Bible. Charging interest is legal—even egregious amounts to poor people. These moneychangers are on every corner. Are Christians being threatened by this offense to god?

There are plenty of other abominations which are suspiciously glossed over by the modern faithful, like obesity, not covering your head, wearing wool blends, eating shellfish, being rich—all condemned and punished severely in the Christian Bible. None of them are against the law. Christians don’t claim their freedom is being impeded by these facts or that it’s so offensive to their faith they can’t run a business. [...]

Freedom really means others will be tolerated whom you don’t regard, understand or agree with. That’s the downside of having freedom in a free county—Americans you don’t like have it too.​

Gays being treated equally and having the same protections in a few states that Christians have in all 50 states, does not equate to "Christian Persecution".

no one has any right to have another person forced to provide a service.

do you also get pissed that muslims can deny gays?

no, b/c you haven't been told to get mad

Do you demand that the naacp give aid to all people of all colors?

no, b/c you don't think for yourself

 

[paperview]

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

 

[paperview]

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

^ Stoopid on a stick.

Yes, yes you are. Prove it every exchange where you get your ass kicked 10 ways from Sunday.

Every day I watch your ass get kicked all over the place.

It's pretty much a given, if Rabbi says it, it's either a lie, or you can take it the bank - the opposite is true.

LOL. You wish.
Are you still defending your "a permit is really a right" nonsense?

Marriage is a Fundamental Right - as ruled by SCOTUS dozens of times.

Absent a license, it's not a marriage.

How did that work out in Loving v Virginia?

 

[paperview]

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

 

[paperview]

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Irrelevant. You seem to think Congress cannot pass bills without prior permission from the Supreme Court.

 

[paperview]

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Irrelevant. You seem to think Congress cannot pass bills without prior permission from the Supreme Court.

^ everybody watching Stuck on Stupid?

What is a bill?

It ain't law baby, now is it?

What makes it a law?

 

[The Rabbi]

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Irrelevant. You seem to think Congress cannot pass bills without prior permission from the Supreme Court.

^ everybody watching Stuck on Stupid?

What is a bill?

It ain't law baby, now is it?

What makes it a law?

So you cannot show how the Supreme Court could prevent Congress from passing a bill. You aee a loser and a time waster and an ignoramus.

 

[bendog]

Really, aren't there three things going on with the "gay marriage issue."

1. Discrimination by the state (or federal) govt in the govt not being able to articulate any reason for denying a gay marriage the same legal recognition as given a hetero marriage. It seems to me that this issue is being pretty well settled by state laws, and federal, going the way of the dinosaurs.

2. Private discrimination (or denial of services) because the Christian or Muslim provider believes that providing the service makes them a party the marriage ceremony. Whether the service non-provider is in legal peril depends on a couple of things. Most importantly, is there a state statute saying GLBT folks are a protected class, and the denial of a service is illegal. If there is, the non-provider has a problem. GLBT folks have not been recognized as a suspect class for federal laws.

If there is no legal prohibition on not providing a service (or participating in a ceremony), then it seems to me we get into a more uncertain area. I think I have seemed unclear because as an old Southern white male, I see a religious justification in segregation and the opposition to serving blacks equally. The segregationists were protecting a society where a white protestant patriarchy was king. Not that I think that is morally right, but my belief as to the morally "rightfulness" of something is irrelevant. If a person sincerely holds a moral belief, and he isn't breaking a law in acting on it, then maybe I have no say in telling him what to do. But, if the person not getting served can find a way to sue him, or engineers an economic boycott against him, as did the civil rights organizations during the 60s, maybe I have no say in telling them what to do, either.

3. Hopefully, we all agree that the religious protection laws were flat out wrong in trying to make it legal to hire and fire, or deny insurance, because a person is GLBT.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

Once there's a final court judgment establishing a right (typically a Scotus judgment) the only power congress has left is to limit the Court's jurisdiction, but that leaves the judgment intact. If the scotus rules bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, it's game over.

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

 

[paperview]

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Please explain how the Court can prevent Congress from passing legislation.
We'll wait. This will be good to see you try to wriggle out of it and backtrack, obfuscate and move goal posts. Because you're stupid and getting your ass spanked for it.

Hey numbskull -- Congress passes a bill.

What happens next?

Are you so loony tunes you think just Congress enacts laws now?

Irrelevant. You seem to think Congress cannot pass bills without prior permission from the Supreme Court.

^ everybody watching Stuck on Stupid?

What is a bill?

It ain't law baby, now is it?

What makes it a law?

So you cannot show how the Supreme Court could prevent Congress from passing a bill. You aee a loser and a time waster and an ignoramus.

The fact you can't answer my question tells everybody everything.

Your premise is false.

ANSWER!

:

What is a bill?

It ain't law baby, now is it?

What makes it a law?

Answer it.

 

[bendog]

Can Congress Override a Court Ruling The Classroom Synonym
Short answer: congress can't pass a law overturning a scotus decision.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really, aren't there three things going on with the "gay marriage issue."

1. Discrimination by the state (or federal) govt in the govt not being able to articulate any reason for denying a gay marriage the same legal recognition as given a hetero marriage. It seems to me that this issue is being pretty well settled by state laws, and federal, going the way of the dinosaurs.

2. Private discrimination (or denial of services) because the Christian or Muslim provider believes that providing the service makes them a party the marriage ceremony. Whether the service non-provider is in legal peril depends on a couple of things. Most importantly, is there a state statute saying GLBT folks are a protected class, and the denial of a service is illegal. If there is, the non-provider has a problem. GLBT folks have not been recognized as a suspect class for federal laws.

If there is no legal prohibition on not providing a service (or participating in a ceremony), then it seems to me we get into a more uncertain area. I think I have seemed unclear because as an old Southern white male, I see a religious justification in segregation and the opposition to serving blacks equally. The segregationists were protecting a society where a white protestant patriarchy was king. Not that I think that is morally right, but my belief as to the morally "rightfulness" of something is irrelevant. If a person sincerely holds a moral belief, and he isn't breaking a law in acting on it, then maybe I have no say in telling him what to do. But, if the person not getting served can find a way to sue him, or engineers an economic boycott against him, as did the civil rights organizations during the 60s, maybe I have no say in telling them what to do, either.

3. Hopefully, we all agree that the religious protection laws were flat out wrong in trying to make it legal to hire and fire, or deny insurance, because a person is GLBT.

Once there's a final court judgment establishing a right (typically a Scotus judgment) the only power congress has left is to limit the Court's jurisdiction, but that leaves the judgment intact. If the scotus rules bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, it's game over.

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.

You're splitting hairs, dumbass.

It's not splitting hairs to point out the idiocy of your statement:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

It's just - pointing out the idiocy of your statement

Please explain how the Court could prevent Congress from passing laws. This ought to be good.

States do not need to articulate reasons why they enacted the laws they did. They are empowered under the 10thA to set marriage laws. And they do. In states that voted for gay marriage, OK they voted for it. I think it's bad policy but its their policy.
Other states voted to maintain one man-one woman. Those states have been subjected to illegal rulings by unelected unaccountable judges against the will of the people.
In states with laws counting gays as minorities like blacks or whatever a private business discriminating on that basis is violating the law. But many states rightly do not think gays are Negroes from the 1960s. And many of those same states have Religious Rights Restoration laws that protect business owners from doing something that would violate their religious conscience, something the 1A presumably protects.
Anyone should be able to discriminate against any one else for any reason whatsoever.