Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[The Rabbi]

Which Poor are you talking about; the State's poor that get cell phones and big screen TVs after the bloated bureaucracy and union cronies have been paid out or the poor you meet directly in the street or read about around the world that are truly starving. Who should get that money first, according to Jesus?

Has no one informed the extreme right that they don't make small screen TV's anymore and that no one uses landlines either?

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

 

[Skylar]

Has no one informed the extreme right that they don't make small screen TV's anymore and that no one uses landlines either?

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

You really think Jesus would have had a problem with the poor being fed by a government?

Really?

 

[rightwinger]

Has no one informed the extreme right that they don't make small screen TV's anymore and that no one uses landlines either?

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

Libertarian Jesus

 

[The Rabbi]

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

Libertarian Jesus

 

[Skylar]

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

Libertarian Jesus

After all, it was Jesus who said:

"Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's. Unless it goes to help the poor. Then verily I say unto thee, **** those guys. "

 

[Skylar]

My money is that Jesus will side with me on giving money to someone who needs food vs. a State funded TV and cell phone.

Who knew that Jesus would side with the Blame the Victims gang?

Jesus was known to walk down the street and yell at poor people to"Get a job"

Jesus was a libertarian.

Libertarian Jesus

Jesus had no problem with taxation. And never referred to it as stealing.

But hey, what did Jesus know in comparison to 'quickmeme.com'. AmIright?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So there is a "threshold" to your twisted value system and beliefs...

Last time I checked, that same threshold exists in your values and beliefs. By establishing what is hatred and bigotry, what is tolerance or intolerance; with that reasoning you get to set the standards of others' morality and in the case of a Christian baker, his or her beliefs.

If a baker's religious beliefs won't allow him to provide service to gays, he is being a good Christian and showing "courage".

For the same reason you praise a gay person coming out of the closet as gay, you praise it as "courage." So, it appears we have different definitions of what "courage."

If an EMT's religious beliefs won't allow him to provide service to gays, he is "discriminating" against gays and being "unethical"

Yeah, and common courtesy doesn't allow you not to misquote me.

An EMT's religious beliefs are irrelevant to his practice. He MUST as a matter of his oath save or attempt to save the life of whomever needs it. That's courage.

As for what you call "unethical" I can't imagine a more unethical thing to do than to force a man to change his beliefs so they comply with yours. Funny, aren't you guys criticizing us for that?

 

[Bfgrn]

So there is a "threshold" to your twisted value system and beliefs...

Last time I checked, that same threshold exists in your values and beliefs. By establishing what is hatred and bigotry, what is tolerance or intolerance; with that reasoning you get to set the standards of others' morality and in the case of a Christian baker, his or her beliefs.

If a baker's religious beliefs won't allow him to provide service to gays, he is being a good Christian and showing "courage".

For the same reason you praise a gay person coming out of the closet as gay, you praise it as "courage." So, it appears we have different definitions of what "courage."

If an EMT's religious beliefs won't allow him to provide service to gays, he is "discriminating" against gays and being "unethical"

Yeah, and common courtesy doesn't allow you not to misquote me.

An EMT's religious beliefs are irrelevant to his practice. He MUST as a matter of his oath save or attempt to save the life of whomever needs it. That's courage.

As for what you call "unethical" I can't imagine a more unethical thing to do than to force a man to change his beliefs so they comply with yours. Funny, aren't you guys criticizing us for that?

You can continue to emote all you want, but the fact remains that a law that would allow a baker to deny service to gays would also allow an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor to do the same. OR, should the law discriminate against an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can continue to emote all you want, but the fact remains that a law that would allow a baker to deny service to gays would also allow an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor to do the same. OR, should the law discriminate against an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor?

You're the one who is "emoting."

I should have thought of this sooner. But the malleability of law is legendary, that's why I admire it. I can make a law which exempts a private business, like a bakery with a Christian owner for example, but ban cops, EMTs and firemen from using their beliefs as a means to discriminate. Easy. Yes, you can do that with the law. And under the Hobby Lobby decision, such a law would be constitutional. Discrimination is not part of public service. Making cakes is not a necessity to the public. It might be to your "wedding," though.

You worked under the assumption that I would create a law allowing ANYONE to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

That's the problem with liberals like you, you make assumptions. And when you do, you make fools of yourselves, just as you have here.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can continue to emote all you want, but the fact remains that a law that would allow a baker to deny service to gays would also allow an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor to do the same. OR, should the law discriminate against an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor?

You're the one who is "emoting."

I should have thought of this sooner. But the malleability of law is legendary, that's why I admire it. I can make a law which exempts a private business, like a bakery with a Christian owner for example, but ban cops, EMTs and firemen from using their beliefs as a means to discriminate. Easy. Yes, you can do that with the law. And under the Hobby Lobby decision, such a law would be constitutional. Discrimination is not part of public service. Making cakes is not a necessity to the public. It might be to your "wedding," though.

You worked under the assumption that I would create a law allowing ANYONE to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

That's the problem with liberals like you, you make assumptions. And when you do, you make fools of yourselves, just as you have here.

This is at least the third post where you define denying service to gays DISCRIMINATION...

Three strikes, you're out.

For once you are right, whether it is a baker, an EMT, a fireman, a policeman or a doctor, it IS DISCRIMINATION...

 

[Cecilie1200]

What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.

What you learn from history is whatever you damned well want to believe is true, whether history agrees with it or not. This is why you're such a shining example for misogynists the world over.

 

[bodecea]

What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.

What you learn from history is whatever you damned well want to believe is true, whether history agrees with it or not. This is why you're such a shining example for misogynists the world over.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Bfgrn]

REALITY...

Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

A new bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has passed through the Michigan House of Representatives, prohibiting the government from intervening if health care workers, such as EMTs and pharmacists, and other businesspeople refuse service on the grounds of protecting personal religious beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

REALITY...

Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

A new bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has passed through the Michigan House of Representatives, prohibiting the government from intervening if health care workers, such as EMTs and pharmacists, and other businesspeople refuse service on the grounds of protecting personal religious beliefs.

Now what does the OP say?

 

[TemplarKormac]

REALITY...

Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

A new bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has passed through the Michigan House of Representatives, prohibiting the government from intervening if health care workers, such as EMTs and pharmacists, and other businesspeople refuse service on the grounds of protecting personal religious beliefs.

Well then, they would be wrong. The reality is, bellboy, that law should be vetoed. So to think this law is an indictment on me and my beliefs is a false presumption on your part. Unlike you, I know when a law goes too far.

 

[Derideo_Te]

REALITY...

Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

A new bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has passed through the Michigan House of Representatives, prohibiting the government from intervening if health care workers, such as EMTs and pharmacists, and other businesspeople refuse service on the grounds of protecting personal religious beliefs.

Now what does the OP say?

Waffle, waffle, mumble, squirm, backpedal, waffle, mumble...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can continue to emote all you want, but the fact remains that a law that would allow a baker to deny service to gays would also allow an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor to do the same. OR, should the law discriminate against an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor?

You're the one who is "emoting."

I should have thought of this sooner. But the malleability of law is legendary, that's why I admire it. I can make a law which exempts a private business, like a bakery with a Christian owner for example, but ban cops, EMTs and firemen from using their beliefs as a means to discriminate. Easy. Yes, you can do that with the law. And under the Hobby Lobby decision, such a law would be constitutional. Discrimination is not part of public service. Making cakes is not a necessity to the public. It might be to your "wedding," though.

You worked under the assumption that I would create a law allowing ANYONE to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

That's the problem with liberals like you, you make assumptions. And when you do, you make fools of yourselves, just as you have here.

This is at least the third post where you define denying service to gays DISCRIMINATION...

Three strikes, you're out.

For once you are right, whether it is a baker, an EMT, a fireman, a policeman or a doctor, it IS DISCRIMINATION...

And that is the trillionth time you've used the word discrimination. It is a matter of grammar that I use the word, though it is a matter of hatred when you do.

You have at least three times in this thread alone twisted my statements. Discrimination is a matter of hatred. Adhering to your faith's teachings isn't. It's nifty that you can equate Christianity with hatred and discrimination, though, all while committing the same offenses, or being hateful and discriminatory, you know, by picking and choosing which beliefs are or aren't acceptable to you. When a belief is unacceptable to you, your seek to bend people with those beliefs to your all so tolerant will.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me put this into terms a liberal could understand:

Person A to Gay Couple A: "I can't cater your wedding, because of my religious beliefs."

Gay Couple A to Person A: Fine, we'll go somewhere else.

That is an example of how a gay couple could exercise tolerance in the face of perceived intolerance.

Person B to Gay Couple B: I can't cater your wedding because of my religious beliefs.

Gay Couple B to Person B: You're a bigot, and if you don't violate your beliefs to cater us, we'll sue you for everything you have. Our wedding is more important than your beliefs.

This is an example of how a gay couple would exercise intolerance in the face of perceived intolerance.

Starting to see the picture here? Only one set of ways and beliefs are acceptable here, the ones that involve outright capitulation.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can continue to emote all you want, but the fact remains that a law that would allow a baker to deny service to gays would also allow an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor to do the same. OR, should the law discriminate against an EMT, fireman, policeman or doctor?

You're the one who is "emoting."

I should have thought of this sooner. But the malleability of law is legendary, that's why I admire it. I can make a law which exempts a private business, like a bakery with a Christian owner for example, but ban cops, EMTs and firemen from using their beliefs as a means to discriminate. Easy. Yes, you can do that with the law. And under the Hobby Lobby decision, such a law would be constitutional. Discrimination is not part of public service. Making cakes is not a necessity to the public. It might be to your "wedding," though.

You worked under the assumption that I would create a law allowing ANYONE to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs.

That's the problem with liberals like you, you make assumptions. And when you do, you make fools of yourselves, just as you have here.

This is at least the third post where you define denying service to gays DISCRIMINATION...

Three strikes, you're out.

For once you are right, whether it is a baker, an EMT, a fireman, a policeman or a doctor, it IS DISCRIMINATION...

And that is the trillionth time you've used the word discrimination. It is a matter of grammar that I use the word, though it is a matter of hatred when you do.

You have at least three times in this thread alone twisted my statements. Discrimination is a matter of hatred. Adhering to your faith's teachings isn't. It's nifty that you can equate Christianity with hatred and discrimination, though, all while committing the same offenses, or being hateful and discriminatory, you know, by picking and choosing which beliefs are or aren't acceptable to you. When a belief is unacceptable to you, your seek to bend people with those beliefs to your all so tolerant will.

I have not twisted any of your words, or their meaning...why are you lying?

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.


Same bullshit different decade What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history Page 55 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Saving lives is a matter of ethics.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me put this into terms a liberal could understand:

Person A to Gay Couple A: "I can't cater your wedding, because of my religious beliefs."

Gay Couple A to Person A: Fine, we'll go somewhere else.

That is an example of how a gay couple could exercise tolerance in the face of perceived intolerance.

Person B to Gay Couple B: I can't cater your wedding because of my religious beliefs.

Gay Couple B to Person B: You're a bigot, and if you don't violate your beliefs to cater us, we'll sue you for everything you have. Our wedding is more important than your beliefs.

This is an example of how a gay couple would exercise intolerance in the face of perceived intolerance.

Starting to see the picture here? Only one set of ways and beliefs are acceptable here, the ones that involve outright capitulation.

Yea, I see the picture...as long as liberals and gays embrace the rights bigotry, discrimination and dehumanizing, the right will be quiet and just continue to spread their vile hatred, something that is as anti- Christian as it gets.