San Antonio Considers AntiChristian Proposal BArring Business With Christians

[martybegan]

Gotcha. Well if I had my choice I think I would pick normal sane muslims...they aren't trying to jam their religion down my throat like christians do here.I am an Atheist so.



So having sex is a sin? Wow...so glad I am not religious at all...couldn't stand to be told what to do by a book written 3 thousand years ago...What about a man and woman having anal? That a sin as well? Because I am sure there is gonna be a lot of christians that are straight sinning lol...But seriously if you run for office the religion needs to stop at the door...

No, it doesnt. You cant force others to tithe to or join your church, but just because your moral compass comes from a religous base, doesnt mean you have to leave it behind when you get elected.

Didn't say leave it behind I said leave your beliefs there at home church whatever...your religious beliefs belong NO WHERE near a policy that affects the public as a whole.

Completely wrong. Just because you believe in X because of a religous belief and thus want to make laws based on X, the root of X means nothing.

So to you people who want to advocate a ban on porn from a religous perspective should not be able to do so, but people who want to advocate one based on feminist tenets should be able to?

 

[JakeStarkey]

By being banned from serving on the city council because of your religous beliefs?

It is not banning belief, it is banning association with banned behavior from serving on the council.

You would not ask a thief to serve as the cashier of a super market.

A cashier is not an elected position. How is a beliefs means for an elected position no different than a religous qualifier or a race qualifier? So now we have thoughtcrime? Scratch a progressive and you find a facist underneath.

You are such a silly reactionary. I said you ban the behavior. Anyone can believe what they want, that is not punished. And, yes, we can have qualifications for certain positions that are elected. Who is saying we can't?

 

[Pogo]

No Christian thinks that homosexual sex is NOT a sin, if so they are not Christians but merely poseurs.

San Antonio Proposal Could Bar Christians From City Council | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

The proposed change would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the city’s discrimination ordinance. It would protect gays, lesbians, transgender, and veterans – a move that had critics accusing the council of playing politics with the military.

“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability,” the ordinance reads.

Critics argue that the ordinance could ban Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin from serving on the city council.

They also believe the ordinance would also ban the city from doing business with anyone who fails to espouse politically correct views and businesses run by people of faith would be subject to criminal penalties if they refused to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs related to homosexuality.

We are getting damned close to open discrimination and attacks on Christians. Just like the Jacobins did in the French Revolution.

Christians need to wake the hell up and get on the stick.

It is the end days this was all prophesied.

Was that in the edition with Green Lantern, or the one with Doctor Evil?

 

[martybegan]

It is not banning belief, it is banning association with banned behavior from serving on the council.

You would not ask a thief to serve as the cashier of a super market.

A cashier is not an elected position. How is a beliefs means for an elected position no different than a religous qualifier or a race qualifier? So now we have thoughtcrime? Scratch a progressive and you find a facist underneath.

You are such a silly reactionary. I said you ban the behavior. Anyone can believe what they want, that is not punished. And, yes, we can have qualifications for certain positions that are elected. Who is saying we can't?

Eh, look at the current NY Elections going on and repeat your statement.....

By someones definition going to a church that bans homosexuals from marrying under said church could be considered acting in a discrimintory manner. That is Thoughtcrime, once again promoted by the left side of the aisle.

And qualifications for elections are often consitutional such as the age requirements for various office, not matter of law, and they are not indiscriminate, such as "I think u are a racist, so no running for office for you!!!!"

Basing office requirements on what a person believes in is the first step towards one party rule. Of course dictiorial wannabes such as yourself see no issue with this.

 

[National Socialist]

No, it doesnt. You cant force others to tithe to or join your church, but just because your moral compass comes from a religous base, doesnt mean you have to leave it behind when you get elected.

Didn't say leave it behind I said leave your beliefs there at home church whatever...your religious beliefs belong NO WHERE near a policy that affects the public as a whole.

Completely wrong. Just because you believe in X because of a religous belief and thus want to make laws based on X, the root of X means nothing.

So to you people who want to advocate a ban on porn from a religous perspective should not be able to do so, but people who want to advocate one based on feminist tenets should be able to?

Nope. Which is why you don't elect nut cases...religious or other wise.

 

[martybegan]

Didn't say leave it behind I said leave your beliefs there at home church whatever...your religious beliefs belong NO WHERE near a policy that affects the public as a whole.

Completely wrong. Just because you believe in X because of a religous belief and thus want to make laws based on X, the root of X means nothing.

So to you people who want to advocate a ban on porn from a religous perspective should not be able to do so, but people who want to advocate one based on feminist tenets should be able to?

Nope. Which is why you don't elect nut cases...religious or other wise.

But the nut cases have to be able to run for office. anything else is tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A cashier is not an elected position. How is a beliefs means for an elected position no different than a religous qualifier or a race qualifier? So now we have thoughtcrime? Scratch a progressive and you find a facist underneath.

You are such a silly reactionary. I said you ban the behavior. Anyone can believe what they want, that is not punished. And, yes, we can have qualifications for certain positions that are elected. Who is saying we can't?

Eh, look at the current NY Elections going on and repeat your statement.....

By someones definition going to a church that bans homosexuals from marrying under said church could be considered acting in a discrimintory manner. That is Thoughtcrime, once again promoted by the left side of the aisle.

And qualifications for elections are often consitutional such as the age requirements for various office, not matter of law, and they are not indiscriminate, such as "I think u are a racist, so no running for office for you!!!!"

Basing office requirements on what a person believes in is the first step towards one party rule. Of course dictiorial wannabes such as yourself see no issue with this.

No one is going to keep you from running or serving because of what you believe. But if you have engaged in banned activity, then, yes, why, that is legal and moral.

 

[Katzndogz]

How are your civil and religious liberties threatened by this proposed policy?

By being banned from serving on the city council because of your religous beliefs?

It is not banning belief, it is banning association with banned behavior from serving on the council.

You would not ask a thief to serve as the cashier of a super market.

Not accepting the normalcy of aberrant behavior is a crime?

 

[National Socialist]

Completely wrong. Just because you believe in X because of a religous belief and thus want to make laws based on X, the root of X means nothing.

So to you people who want to advocate a ban on porn from a religous perspective should not be able to do so, but people who want to advocate one based on feminist tenets should be able to?

Nope. Which is why you don't elect nut cases...religious or other wise.

But the nut cases have to be able to run for office. anything else is tyranny.

Ya gotta draw the line somewhere..hence the reason we have a constitution and state constitutions to make sure the religious nuts don't get their way we would end up like Saudi Arabia...whipping people for bashing christianity or cutting off hands for stealing...

 

[martybegan]

You are such a silly reactionary. I said you ban the behavior. Anyone can believe what they want, that is not punished. And, yes, we can have qualifications for certain positions that are elected. Who is saying we can't?

Eh, look at the current NY Elections going on and repeat your statement.....

By someones definition going to a church that bans homosexuals from marrying under said church could be considered acting in a discrimintory manner. That is Thoughtcrime, once again promoted by the left side of the aisle.

And qualifications for elections are often consitutional such as the age requirements for various office, not matter of law, and they are not indiscriminate, such as "I think u are a racist, so no running for office for you!!!!"

Basing office requirements on what a person believes in is the first step towards one party rule. Of course dictiorial wannabes such as yourself see no issue with this.

No one is going to keep you from running or serving because of what you believe. But if you have engaged in banned activity, then, yes, why, that is legal and moral.

So who gets to define a "banned activity" Is going to a church that denies gays the right to marry in said church a "banned activity" Is going to a church that opposes abortion now a "banned activity?"

The fact that anyone would approve of such a law makes me wonder what happnend to the concept of freedom as we used to hold it.

Facists, all of you.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Which is why you don't elect nut cases...religious or other wise.

But the nut cases have to be able to run for office. anything else is tyranny.

Ya gotta draw the line somewhere..hence the reason we have a constitution and state constitutions to make sure the religious nuts don't get their way we would end up like Saudi Arabia...whipping people for bashing christianity or cutting off hands for stealing...

No, there cannot be any line when it comes to running for office, unless someone is adjuicated by a judge/jury.

Again, all this is is creating thoughtcrime.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Eh, look at the current NY Elections going on and repeat your statement.....

By someones definition going to a church that bans homosexuals from marrying under said church could be considered acting in a discrimintory manner. That is Thoughtcrime, once again promoted by the left side of the aisle.

And qualifications for elections are often consitutional such as the age requirements for various office, not matter of law, and they are not indiscriminate, such as "I think u are a racist, so no running for office for you!!!!"

Basing office requirements on what a person believes in is the first step towards one party rule. Of course dictiorial wannabes such as yourself see no issue with this.

No one is going to keep you from running or serving because of what you believe. But if you have engaged in banned activity, then, yes, why, that is legal and moral.

So who gets to define a "banned activity" Is going to a church that denies gays the right to marry in said church a "banned activity" Is going to a church that opposes abortion now a "banned activity?"

The fact that anyone would approve of such a law makes me wonder what happnend to the concept of freedom as we used to hold it.

Facists, all of you.

If such were the fact, a federal court will toss it out immediately.

But you are willing are you not, MartyBegan, to use statist right wing progressive action to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, are you not?

 

[martybegan]

No one is going to keep you from running or serving because of what you believe. But if you have engaged in banned activity, then, yes, why, that is legal and moral.

So who gets to define a "banned activity" Is going to a church that denies gays the right to marry in said church a "banned activity" Is going to a church that opposes abortion now a "banned activity?"

The fact that anyone would approve of such a law makes me wonder what happnend to the concept of freedom as we used to hold it.

Facists, all of you.

If such were the fact, a federal court will toss it out immediately.

But you are willing are you not, MartyBegan, to use statist right wing progressive action to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, are you not?

I dont believe in overall bans or abortion, or banning gay marriage. What I dont see is a consitutional right to either, thus if Alabama wants to ban both, let em do it.

Banning people from running for office because of what they believe in is far far different from abortion law and gay marriage law. What you are doing is basically denying citizenship to people based on what they believe or thier non-criminal actions.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test to hold public office. There is no prescribed sex test that only those willing to have gay sex be allowed to hold public office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So who gets to define a "banned activity" Is going to a church that denies gays the right to marry in said church a "banned activity" Is going to a church that opposes abortion now a "banned activity?"

The fact that anyone would approve of such a law makes me wonder what happnend to the concept of freedom as we used to hold it.

Facists, all of you.

If such were the fact, a federal court will toss it out immediately.

But you are willing are you not, MartyBegan, to use statist right wing progressive action to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, are you not?

I dont believe in overall bans or abortion, or banning gay marriage. What I dont see is a consitutional right to either, thus if Alabama wants to ban both, let em do it.

Banning people from running for office because of what they believe in is far far different from abortion law and gay marriage law. What you are doing is basically denying citizenship to people based on what they believe or thier non-criminal actions.

AoC and the Civil War are long over. Believe as you will, but your beliefs will change nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Katz chimes in with the known known.

 

[martybegan]

If such were the fact, a federal court will toss it out immediately.

But you are willing are you not, MartyBegan, to use statist right wing progressive action to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, are you not?

I dont believe in overall bans or abortion, or banning gay marriage. What I dont see is a consitutional right to either, thus if Alabama wants to ban both, let em do it.

Banning people from running for office because of what they believe in is far far different from abortion law and gay marriage law. What you are doing is basically denying citizenship to people based on what they believe or thier non-criminal actions.

AoC and the Civil War are long over. Believe as you will, but your beliefs will change nothing.

So you have nothing to counter my postion, and go with the tired old ploy of dismissal.

 

[Katzndogz]

So they cannot ban Christians from holding public office. Nor can they demand that deeds (such as turning down the advances of a homosexual) be used as a basis for denying public office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I dont believe in overall bans or abortion, or banning gay marriage. What I dont see is a consitutional right to either, thus if Alabama wants to ban both, let em do it.

Banning people from running for office because of what they believe in is far far different from abortion law and gay marriage law. What you are doing is basically denying citizenship to people based on what they believe or thier non-criminal actions.

AoC and the Civil War are long over. Believe as you will, but your beliefs will change nothing.

So you have nothing to counter my postion, and go with the tired old ploy of dismissal.

There is nothing to dismiss. You have a null position. Tis what tis.

 

[martybegan]

AoC and the Civil War are long over. Believe as you will, but your beliefs will change nothing.

So you have nothing to counter my postion, and go with the tired old ploy of dismissal.

There is nothing to dismiss. You have a null position. Tis what tis.

So you dismiss my position by dismissing my postion on my position?

Maybe debate boards arent your strong point. Go hang out on the hello kitty and candyland boards, and buck up a bit.