# you cant discriminate against me, i am an atheist



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...l-votes-to-ban-discrimination-against-atheism

because apparently it wasnt obvious, if you cant discriminate against people because believe, you cant discriminate against people who dont believe. 

guess who discriminates against them....


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Okay, I'll bite. Who discriminates against them?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Haven't atheists been a protected class for a while in public schools, universities and several fields of science?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

If there's going to be a list seems fair enough to add atheists along with the religious.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Some days I could swear I have been transported back to the schoolyard........


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Some days I could swear I have been transported back to the schoolyard........


Agreed, there should be no need for any such list.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

If there was no God there would be no athiest. They work very hard to protest someone they say isn't real. Lol


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If there was no God there would be no athiest. They work very hard to protest someone they say isn't real. Lol


fiction and mythology are real, it doesnt make them truth.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mrsgcpete said:


> fiction and mythology are real, it doesnt make them truth.


"real"......fiction.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Madison, Wi....what a sad place it's become over the years. I thought it was bad when I lived there for 20 yrs, a long time ago...it's only gotten worse.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Perhaps the atheist are protesting the real G-D, you know the spaghetti one.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

What atheists don't seem to know is there's NO "freedom FROM religion" only freedom OF religion.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

What I have never understood is why anyone would think their life so worthless that after they die their is nothing and no one else who loves them. Who thinks they just become dirt and are forgotten. Why would you choose to think that way if their is another option that is eternally beeautiful. Why would one choose to think they were created for no other purpose than to live and die and that's it? Isn't a life lived for a purpose of eternal life for fulfilling than one loved only for yourself and the moment? Every culture on the planet had a belief in a higher power. Why is that? Because it's wired into us from our creator. We automatically know there had to be more and those who think they don't have a hole that is never fillef because they reject it. It's why the suicide rate is so high among non believers. They have a hole that only God can fill. Many don't want to answer to anyone or take responsibility for their actions so they reject him. If I'm wrong what did I lose? If your wrong what do you lose?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> What I have never understood is why anyone would think their life so worthless that after they die their is nothing and no one else who loves them. Who thinks they just become dirt and are forgotten. Why would you choose to think that way if their is another option that is eternally beeautiful. Why would one choose to think they were created for no other purpose than to live and die and that's it? Isn't a life lived for a purpose of eternal life for fulfilling than one loved only for yourself and the moment? Every culture on the planet had a belief in a higher power. Why is that? Because it's wired into us from our creator. We automatically know there had to be more and those who think they don't have a hole that is never fillef because they reject it. It's why the suicide rate is so high among non believers. They have a hole that only God can fill. Many don't want to answer to anyone or take responsibility for their actions so they reject him. If I'm wrong what did I lose? If your wrong what do you lose?


To answer your last question it depends on how you live your life. Do you do do good deeds to please one of the many gods or do you do them because they are the proper thing to do? Do you value and respect others because they are human or do you devalue and disrespect them because their beliefs are different? If there is a god and an afterlife I expect to be judged on the entirety of my life, good choices and bad, not on whether I choose the right book to read, the right spiritual leader to follow, or the right god to worship. What have I gained- a life well lead. What have I lost- a lot of institutional intolerance and hypocritical rules.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Do atheist believe they have a soul?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Do atheist belive they have a soul!


Why does it matter?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Why does it matter?


It matters a lot.

I can understand atheism if you have no soul. You are born. You die. That is it. 

If you believe you have a soul, do you belive it remains beyond your body's death?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> To answer your last question it depends on how you live your life. Do you do do good deeds to please one of the many gods or do you do them because they are the proper thing to do? Do you value and respect others because they are human or do you devalue and disrespect them because their beliefs are different? If there is a god and an afterlife I expect to be judged on the entirety of my life, good choices and bad, not on whether I choose the right book to read, the right spiritual leader to follow, or the right god to worship. What have I gained- a life well lead. What have I lost- a lot of institutional intolerance and hypocritical rules.


Post Of The Day!  

I don't adhere to organized religion, and your statement, "What have I lost- a lot of institutional intolerance and hypocritical rules." resonates strongly with me.

I'm an agnostic theist, right now anyway. I bounce from straight agnostic back to agnostic theist. My older relatives call it "hedging my bets" but they still love me.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It matters a lot.



To you maybe but it's unclear why you'd care. 

Sorry, you posted again and I didn't see it.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Tiempo said:


> If there's going to be a list seems fair enough to add atheists along with the religious.


True ... it is the other protected classes on that list from Madison that seem to go a tad too far from me. Since in Madison you cannot discriminate based on arrest or conviction record, can a childcare refuse employment to a convicted child molester? Or can an investment company refuse employment to someone convicted of embezzlement? There are a few other categories on that list that do not make much sense to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> It matters a lot.
> 
> I can understand atheism if you have no soul. You are born. You die. That is it.
> 
> If you believe you have a soul, do you belive it remains beyond your body's death?


You didn't ask whether Athiests believe they have a soul. That's a different question. 

But having a soul and believing in some sort of afterlife don't require the belief in a god. I know people who have no belief in a god who believe we are all imbued with a life force that has infinite interconnections and exists all around us at all all times, entering people at birth and exiting at death only to be recycled at a later date. Is it a "soul". You decide.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Let us look at this with logic and ration. 

Atheist "believe" there is no God. They have no proof therefore they must have "faith" their "belief" is correct. They use their "faith" in this "belief" to guide the way they live their lives.

To me that's sounds a *LOT* like a religion. Just change the first sentence of that paragraph to "Christians believe. . ." or "Muslims believe. . ." or "Jews believe. . ." or "Buddhist believe. . ."


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> To answer your last question it depends on how you live your life. Do you do do good deeds to please one of the many gods or do you do them because they are the proper thing to do? Do you value and respect others because they are human or do you devalue and disrespect them because their beliefs are different? If there is a god and an afterlife I expect to be judged on the entirety of my life, good choices and bad, not on whether I choose the right book to read, the right spiritual leader to follow, or the right god to worship. What have I gained- a life well lead. What have I lost- a lot of institutional intolerance and hypocritical rules.


Here is the thing. Only God of the Bible and Jesus have stood the test of time. It had been the most converted to religion over the last 400 years. Infact over 50% of the ways population believes in the God of Israel. The roman gods fell by the wayside. Buddha was a man who lived and died. And in general had a small following compared to Jesus. The stories of the Bible are the only ones that stretch across all cultures and the globe. Even long before ocean travel the stories of God and christ are evident in the early historical artifacts of many cultures around the world. Including the flood and singular God. Bono said it best. Do you honestly think over half of the world who has had their lives changed by Jesus are following a daft man or are daft themselves? I think not. He said we know the apostles lived by historian records and that they did horrible deaths. Do you think they would die like that of they hadn't seen what they said they saw? Even Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy to die as Jesus did. It was a great interview and changed my opinion of Bono.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Let us look at this with logic and ration.
> 
> Atheist "believe" there is no God. They have no proof therefore they must have "faith" their "belief" is correct. They use their "faith" in this "belief" to guide the way they live their lives.
> 
> To me that's sounds a *LOT* like a religion. Just change the first sentence of that paragraph to "Christians believe. . ." or "Muslims believe. . ." or "Jews believe. . ." or "Buddhist believe. . ."


So if you believe there is no global warming, you therefore have faith there is no global warming then your religion is " No global warming"?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> So if you believe there is no global warming, you therefore have faith there is no global warming then your religion is " No global warming"?


Not the same. The global warming farce is backed by proveable data that it is or isn't happening. There is no such data to the existence of God. So faith in him or faith he doesn't exist, is true faith and personal conviction, therefore classifiable as a religion


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

From watching the natural progression of classes in this country, it appears the first step is into the "protected" class, then into the "privileged" class. That's when the demands go from "tolerate" to "celebrate".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Not the same. The global warming farce is backed by proveable data that it is or isn't happening. There is no such data to the existence of God. So faith in him or faith he doesn't exist, is true faith and personal conviction, therefore classifiable as a religion


Well, I believe that science has proven the Bible wrong. That would mean that I don't need faith to believe there is no God. Data has proven it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Here is the thing. Only God of the Bible and Jesus have stood the test of time. It had been the most converted to religion over the last 400 years. Infact over 50% of the ways population believes in the God of Israel. The roman gods fell by the wayside. Buddha was a man who lived and died. And in general had a small following compared to Jesus. The stories of the Bible are the only ones that stretch across all cultures and the globe. Even long before ocean travel the stories of God and christ are evident in the early historical artifacts of many cultures around the world. Including the flood and singular God. Bono said it best. Do you honestly think over half of the world who has had their lives changed by Jesus are following a daft man or are daft themselves? I think not. He said we know the apostles lived by historian records and that they did horrible deaths. Do you think they would die like that of they hadn't seen what they said they saw? Even Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy to die as Jesus did. It was a great interview and changed my opinion of Bono.


And that god of Israel encompasses three major religions and countless subsects of each, none of which seem to agree with the others. Much of the belief and conversion over the centuries has come at the tip of a sword. True believers or following the safe path of the day? I've seen in my own time people who have died following the wrong person, so yes, shared delusion is possible. You can decide. Your faith works for you. Others who differ have faiths that work for them. Good enough for me on all sides.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Well, I believe that science has proven the Bible wrong. That would mean that I don't need faith to believe there is no God. Data has proven it.


Ah, such profound faith in science.....
There is a tendency in people to think they are superior because their belief in one thing while others believe in another.
I tend to leave the beliefs of others uncommented on because the essential nature of belief is that it is not a good subject for success in debate. If I could debate someone out of their faith, I would be horrorfied at the ugliness of the result.
The best that can be done is to argue someone towards something rather than drive something out.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> Well, I believe that science has proven the Bible wrong. That would mean that I don't need faith to believe there is no God. Data has proven it.


Science can do no such thing. It can trace life back to the smallest one celled organism but cab never tell you where it was created or came from. Science has also proven evolution wrong. Things evolve to better themselves. Yet many species including us have degenerated. Body cells cannot tell we have clothing yet we lost all our body hair to maintain our body temp in all weathers. That's a degeneration of our makeup according to science. Dna also cannot add information. It only has the information programmed into it. So no matter how hard a fish tries it can't tell itself to grow lungs or legs. Just add you and I cannot tell our cells we need wings and grow them. Science is full of hokes and with a little common sense, it is easy to see it makes no sense. It takes more faith to believe in science than God.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Ah, such profound faith in science.....
> There is a tendency in people to think they are superior because their belief in one thing while others believe in another.
> I tend to leave the beliefs of others uncommented on because the essential nature of belief is that it is not a good subject for success in debate. If I could debate someone out of their faith, I would be horrorfied at the ugliness of the result.
> The best that can be done is to argue someone towards something rather than drive something out.


I don't need to debate anyone out of their faith. They seem to feel the need to tell me that I have a religion though.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science can do no such thing. .


I disagree.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> I disagree.


That's your faith not proof. Sounds like my religion. Lol


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's your faith not proof. Sounds like my religion. Lol


No faith. I see the evidence with my own eyes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I don't need to debate anyone out of their faith. They seem to feel the need to tell me that I have a religion though.


You announced the Bible was disproven. How is that not the same as calling you a sinner for not believing? Both are to drive out the belief of the other. Need to do so, on the other hand, is only a guess at best in another.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Science has proven the Bible Wrong? Since when? Is that some kind of new science thing that nobody knows about?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> No faith. I see the evidence with my own eyes.


Amazing since the most basic science is not the least visable. And confusing even to its specialists. Like quantum mechanics or string theory or any of the truly mathematical theories where empirical science evidence get very indirect.
Faith in science is a more difficult proposition than in other faiths because one of its basic tenets is testability. But it is so subject to being misused with the appearance of authority. And a healthy scepticism is needed. Without that, it is just another faith, only less durable.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have to go along with madisons decision to ban discrimination against atheists. The only problem I have with it would be that it doesnt go far enough. Anti discrimination laws should protect everyone, not just particular groups.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Do atheist believe they have a soul?





mmoetc said:


> You didn't ask whether Athiests believe they have a soul. That's a different question.
> 
> But having a soul and believing in some sort of afterlife don't require the belief in a god. I know people who have no belief in a god who believe we are all imbued with a life force that has infinite interconnections and exists all around us at all all times, entering people at birth and exiting at death only to be recycled at a later date. Is it a "soul". You decide.


I sure thought I ask just that question.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I certainly can use discernment

I might avoid you because I find you boorish
I might refuse to sit near you because of your perfume/ order
I might refuse to invite you to a party because your attitude would not be a good fit.
I might not pick you to be in my survival group cause you do not have the work ethic I want to see.

Yep I can openly reject you just cause I do not find you to be pleasant.

These ......special protected groups you want are dividing the nation.

I can reject people and their ideas because I find than immature self centered and off base...

I know harsh words but someone has to to inform....wake ...reach out causes.... ignorance is not bliss. An attitude of inequality is destructive.


I know we have the pot stirring in chief, and gang running the country off the cliff....and people are buy the line that they are special....you are being used a a tool to destroy America.

The sad thing is every thing that Martin Luther king worked for the current leadership is destroying....and too many are out getting their own wrecking ball.

Those who's actions to destroy America will be remembered in the history. Even if it was just for fun, cause they could well everyone else is doing it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

watcher said:


> Let us look at this with logic and ration.
> 
> Atheist "believe" there is no God. They have no proof therefore they must have "faith" their "belief" is correct. They use their "faith" in this "belief" to guide the way they live their lives.
> 
> To me that's sounds a *LOT* like a religion. Just change the first sentence of that paragraph to "Christians believe. . ." or "Muslims believe. . ." or "Jews believe. . ." or "Buddhist believe. . ."


BINGO:whistlin:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I sure thought I ask just that question.


I apologize for misreading your question. My bad.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> I certainly can use discernment
> 
> I might avoid you because I find you boorish
> I might refuse to sit near you because of your perfume/ order
> ...


I wounder how much arguments like this one are going to be used to bring or justify Sharia Law into this Country.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Well said Kasilofhome.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Wlover said:


> No faith. I see the evidence with my own eyes.


Well actually the "evidence" of science is all published by someone else's observations, not yours or mine. Some believe those who publish those things, and others don't.

I have actual first hand observed evidence of the reality of God in my life and I do know that is a fact.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> Well actually the "evidence" of science is all published by someone else's observations, not yours or mine. Some believe those who publish those things, and others don't.
> 
> I have actual first hand observed evidence of the reality of God in my life and I do know that is a fact.


I observe science every day. I also actually do science every day.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

WAKE UP CALL

Everyone every day .....does science...nothing special about you doing it.

Simply breathing is science...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> WAKE UP CALL
> 
> Everyone every day .....does science...nothing special about you doing it.
> 
> Simply break high is science...


Did I say that? 

I was just pointing it out to the person that said " Well actually the "evidence" of science is all published by someone else's observations, not yours or mine. Some believe those who publish those things, and others don't."


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> I guess that is a big deal for you


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Did I say that?
> 
> I was just pointing it out to the person that said " Well actually the "evidence" of science is all published by someone else's observations, not yours or mine. Some believe those who publish those things, and others don't."


And if you are involved in basic science, not just applying other's work, you never had someone fudge data to make it fit or let a bias into their process or simply lie to the boss? Or even follow a hunch or make a typo? 

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God as the definition of God is being unknowable. Best to just nod your head and move on.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And if you are involved in basic science, not just applying other's work, you never had someone fudge data to make it fit or let a bias into their process or simply lie to the boss? Or even follow a hunch or make a typo?
> 
> Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God as the definition of God is being unknowable. Best to just nod your head and move on.


I could say exactly the same about your opinion.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> So if you believe there is no global warming, you therefore have faith there is no global warming then your religion is " No global warming"?


You are now getting into the religion of science.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And yet has science found any proof of intelligence life any where but earth.....any event animals to the level of development as earth.

Is God dead is a new movie ...dare you to watch it ....dare you to see science support God... scientists that fought to disprove God only to support him..

You won't cause you would rather the earthy freedom of freewill as you please on earth......just remember thus who tried to wake you up.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> And yet has science found any proof of intelligence life any where but earth.....any event animals to the level of development as earth.
> 
> Is God dead is a new movie ...dare you to watch it ....dare you to see science support God... scientists that fought to disprove God only to support him..
> 
> You won't cause you would rather the earthy freedom of freewill as you please on earth......just remember thus who tried to wake you up.


They won't have to remember. God will show each person every chance they had and every person they met who tried to show the truth.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Well, I believe that science has proven the Bible wrong. That would mean that I don't need faith to believe there is no God. Data has proven it.


Your logic fails on a couple of levels. First off science has not proven the Bible is wrong. Second, any one with scientific training and are honest will tell you almost anything science has "proven" is based on beliefs and faith. I use the different theories about the universe and its beginnings. All of those theories are based on other unproven (and in some cases disproven) theories.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Your logic fails on a couple of levels. First off science has not proven the Bible is wrong. Second, any one with scientific training and are honest will tell you almost anything science has "proven" is based on beliefs and faith. I use the different theories about the universe and its beginnings. All of those theories are based on other unproven (and in some cases disproven) theories.


It has proven it to me. I know you don't agree and I am not asking you to.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> No faith. I see the evidence with my own eyes.


So you have seen "proof" of macroevolution with your own eyes? Or have you seen some things and came to a conclusion based on your faith?

Have you seen "proof" that the speed of light in a gravity free vacuum is the same as it is when affected by gravity? Or do you just take it on faith?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Science theory is only fact when it has been observed and repeated. Since most theories have not been such as evolution etc... They are still theory and not fact. Probably 60% of theories most consider fact have not been observed or repeated.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Did I say that?
> 
> I was just pointing it out to the person that said " Well actually the "evidence" of science is all published by someone else's observations, not yours or mine. Some believe those who publish those things, and others don't."


The problem is there are some tenants of the religion of science believers are afraid to question even though there are major holes in them. Almost everything we "know" about the universe is based on the unproven theory that the speed of light in open space is the same as it is near earth. Even though it has been proven that the speed of light is NOT constant. A quick google search will lead you to the published data.

About everything we "know" about macroevolution is based on jumps in logic. You can breed a dog down to the size of a large rat or up to the size of a small cow therefore given enough time you must be able to breed a dog which will have a completely different DNA. Now there's some scientific logic for ya.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> It has proven it to me. I know you don't agree and I am not asking you to.


Again because you are taking it on faith.

If you "do science" as much as you imply then you should know you need to put a qualifier in there when making such statements. I have dealt with people who say things have "proven" the Nazi holocaust didn't happen, that it has been "proven" the moon landings were fake, that is has been proven a specific race is not as intelligent as another and other stuff. They can even provide you with the evidence used to prove it to them. The problem is they refuse to accept any evidence which tends to disprove their conclusion.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Wlover said:


> I observe science every day. I also actually do science every day.


 I might have to apply more "science" in my daily life raising livestock than the average person in any particular field of science ever has to mess with in their labs and white coats.

What keeps coming to me is how incredibly complex and amazingly perfect all the laws of God's creation are, and how they apply to all these living creatures He made. 

What you see only differs because you are viewing it through the lense of what those published scientists tell you is the truth...but God hasn't really been disproven to you. He's just been omitted by you.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The "Big Bang" theory, long hailed as fact, has recently been found to be incorrect. Scientists the world over "believed" for decades they had the origin of the universe figured out, now not so much.

For centuries everyone, including scientists, "believed" the sun revolved around the earth. Oops.

Anyone who thinks science can disprove the existence of God doesn't understand science.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Again because you are taking it on faith.
> 
> If you "do science" as much as you imply then you should know you need to put a qualifier in there when making such statements. I have dealt with people who say things have "proven" the Nazi holocaust didn't happen, that it has been "proven" the moon landings were fake, that is has been proven a specific race is not as intelligent as another and other stuff. They can even provide you with the evidence used to prove it to them. The problem is they refuse to accept any evidence which tends to disprove their conclusion.


Again, you don't know me or what I know or take on faith. Trying to put your thoughts in my head does not make it so.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

What I don't understand is that most people should know that theories are just that.....theories. The theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design. Why do people get worked up over what someone else believes when it has no bearing (or shouldn't have bearing) on their own personal lives.

In the case of a business that wants to 'discriminate' (and that isn't the best word for the action I don't think) perhaps we can say selectively service specific customers based on religious or personal beliefs, I would agree that they should have that right.

Where I draw the line is when people, using their own personal beliefs and religious texts, try to amend the law (that affects everyone) forcing people to abide by their own religious beliefs (in essence, forcing their religion upon them).

It is not fair for a 'gay' couple to force someone to do something they don't like and neither is it right for a 'religious' person to try and limit the state or federal gov't definition of marriage.

If people who are so bent up over 'gay' people forcing others to work or provide for them and call it forcing against their beliefs, then can they honestly say that the same people who lobby for 'Marriage: one man, one woman" aren't forcing others against their beliefs?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Again, you don't know me or what I know or take on faith. Trying to put your thoughts in my head does not make it so.


I can make inferences based on your words. You have said that you haven't seen all this stuff yourself. Which means what you believe is based on what someone says they have seen. Believing in something you haven't seen is the basic definition of faith is it not?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> I can make inferences based on your words. You have said that you haven't seen all this stuff yourself. Which means what you believe is based on what someone says they have seen. Believing in something you haven't seen is the basic definition of faith is it not?



Where did I say "You have said that you haven't seen all this stuff yourself"?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Well, I believe that science has proven the Bible wrong. That would mean that I don't need faith to believe there is no God. Data has proven it.


:shrug:
.
PS :
you can erase your sig. judging by the lack of content in your post , in this thread , no one would be interested anyway :bowtie:
YWIA


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

J.T.M. said:


> :shrug:
> .
> PS :
> you can erase your sig. judging by the lack of content in your post , in this thread , no one would be interested anyway :bowtie:
> YWIA


Trying to hurt my feelings or insult me?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Just letting ya know that you could be putting that space to better use . Are you really that sensitive ?
and could you elaborate a little on your sci. proved the bible wrong please


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

J.T.M. said:


> Just letting ya know that you could be putting that space to better use . Are you really that sensitive ?
> and could you elaborate a little on your sci. proved the bible wrong please


Not inclined to have a discussion with anyone that starts off with put downs.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Not inclined to have a discussion with anyone that starts off with put downs.


 THANKYOU ,I told everyone here that your reply would be just that :bowtie:
Wake me up when you write something worth stealing ...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Where did I say "You have said that you haven't seen all this stuff yourself"?


Mea culpa, I misread what you wrote in post #48. 

But you do have to admit that unless you provided the proof yourself the only other option is to take someone else's word. Which requires you to have faith in them and their work. To do science w/o faith would mean you'd have to prove all the scientific laws that your science is based on.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If there was no God there would be no athiest. They work very hard to protest someone they say isn't real. Lol


The only reason Athiests protest is in defense of all the religious attention that gets directed their way. If someone else didn't bring religion up in conversation they would never even talk about it because they couldn't care less about something that doesn't exist.

As for science vs religion, I'm a pretty intelligent guy but it kind of makes my head start to rattle. Personally, I live my life by what goes on around me during my day. If I throw a rock up in the air it will fall back to the ground. When the temperature falls below freezing water turns to ice. When the temperature goes above boiling point water turns to steam. Fire will burn me when I get too close to it. Pretty simple science, I suppose, but I know it will happen because I've personally seen these things happen a thousand times (yeah, don't seem to learn the fire burning thing...lol). I think we have more to learn about this planet and universe than we have ever learned so far and I don't doubt that some scientific principles that we know now are refuted or refined as discoveries are made and our knowledge grows. That doesn't mean that the scientific principles we know now are invalid.

When someone comes up to me to tell me a story about a guy who lived 2000 years ago who died and came back to life, well, I'm a bit skeptical.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I see the proof of these scientific principles every day so there is no need for faith there.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> The only reason Athiests protest is in defense of all the religious attention that gets directed their way. If someone else didn't bring religion up in conversation they would never even talk about it because they couldn't care less about something that doesn't exist.


I remember back in the old chat room days (blast from the past) how the christian rooms were continually inundated with irritable athiests. There would be raging fights in those rooms consistantly. I think it's easy enough to find that athiests interject their beliefs quite readily in places where they have no reason to find any freedom From religion.

Every atheist I've ever met has been very passionate and outspoken about their beliefs.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> What I don't understand is that most people should know that theories are just that.....theories. The theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design. Why do people get worked up over what someone else believes when it has no bearing (or shouldn't have bearing) on their own personal lives.
> 
> In the case of a business that wants to 'discriminate' (and that isn't the best word for the action I don't think) perhaps we can say selectively service specific customers based on religious or personal beliefs, I would agree that they should have that right.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't it just make more sense to call a gay union something different? Like UNION? Then you wouldn't be changing the meaning of the word. People object b/c its changing a word, like you cannot call a dog a cat. Get the gov't out of it? Allow 'unions' to be the exact same as marriage.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wouldn't it just make more sense to call a gay union something different? Like UNION? Then you wouldn't be changing the meaning of the word. People object b/c its changing a word, like you cannot call a dog a cat. Get the gov't out of it? Allow 'unions' to be the exact same as marriage.


It is a marriage, so calling it something else so someone can pretend it is not is really a waste of most peoples time.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wouldn't it just make more sense to call a gay union something different? Like UNION? Then you wouldn't be changing the meaning of the word. People object b/c its changing a word, like you cannot call a dog a cat. Get the gov't out of it? Allow 'unions' to be the exact same as marriage.


So my church can perform a Union ceremony for a gay couple but not a marriage ceremony. You're close. The government should get totally out of the marriage business. They should allow people to enter into a contract that conveys the same benefits marriage does now. What you or your church wish to call the ceremony codifying it and the following union can be up to you and your religion, or me and mine.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wouldn't it just make more sense to call a gay union something different? Like UNION? Then you wouldn't be changing the meaning of the word. People object b/c its changing a word, like you cannot call a dog a cat. Get the gov't out of it? Allow 'unions' to be the exact same as marriage.


Do you think the Jim Crow laws would have been "better" if they had been called something else?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Well since it's a science /religion issue look at it like this. Science says evolution is for the betterment of a species. Every species primary goal is to grow is numbers and survive. So how does evolving a same sex attraction benefit a species? It doesn't. Therefore it goes against even nature and science. From a health standpoint both physical abs mental, true medical science sure doesnt support it.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well since it's a science /religion issue look at it like this. Science says evolution is for the betterment of a species. Every species primary goal is to grow is numbers and survive. So how does evolving a same sex attraction benefit a species? It doesn't. Therefore it goes against even nature and science. From a health standpoint both physical abs mental, true medical science sure doesnt support it.


You might have a point if every human born was gay. Hypothetically the species would die out. 

I'm curious, when did you chose to be straight?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well since it's a science /religion issue look at it like this. Science says evolution is for the betterment of a species. Every species primary goal is to grow is numbers and survive. So how does evolving a same sex attraction benefit a species? It doesn't. Therefore it goes against even nature and science. From a health standpoint both physical abs mental, true medical science sure doesnt support it.


It may have a benefit. Resources are always limited. Having a certain sector of a population being non breeders might have the effect of being able to allocate a greater share of those limited resources to the offspring of the breeders. If all breed there are more offspring to spread the limited resources around. There may be an ideal number of non breeders, who can still hunt, gather and protect the tribe, as a percentage of the total population that optimizes the chances of survival for the tribe.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

joseph97297 said:


> What I don't understand is that most people should know that theories are just that.....theories. The theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design. Why do people get worked up over what someone else believes when it has no bearing (or shouldn't have bearing) on their own personal lives.


They shouldn't.
As long as things remain separate.
It's when one, forces the other, to accomodate / bend to their will, when things get ugly.



> In the case of a business that wants to 'discriminate' (and that isn't the best word for the action I don't think) perhaps we can say *selectively service *specific customers based on religious or personal beliefs, I would agree that they should have that right


Agree



> Where I draw the line is when people, using their own personal beliefs and religious texts, try to amend the law (that affects everyone) forcing people to abide by their own religious beliefs (in essence, forcing their religion upon them).


Agree. I don't like anyone bending a law to fit their agenda, religion, beliefs.



> It is not fair for a 'gay' couple to force someone to do something they don't like and neither is it right for a 'religious' person to try and limit the state or federal gov't definition of marriage.


It is not fair for a 'gay' couple to force someone to do something they don't like. It is not fair for ANYONE to be forced to do something they do not like.
I don't care what kind of pigment you have, what you do behind closed doors or what god you serve. No one is above another.



> If people who are so bent up over 'gay' people forcing others to work or provide for them and call it forcing against their beliefs, then can they honestly say that the same people who lobby for 'Marriage: one man, one woman" aren't forcing others against their beliefs?


Yep.
It's not fair to 'gays' that people want the laws to stay the same "one man one woman".
It's not fair to muslims that they have to provide pork bbq sandwiches to cater gay marriages, because if they don't, they will be labeled as "haters" and their business will be vandalized, protested, picketed, etc. 
SO they either break faith, and give 'gays' what they want (which is a VIOLATION of their rights) or be black balled, lableled and ran out of business.

I don't get it.
If I was marrying my girlfriend (I am female) and a business said "we don't serve your kind"........I'd be like THANK YOU SO MUCH for letting me know that you think of me as less human and some how my money is not green enough. AND I will NEVER make the mistake of trying to use this business again!! 
If I was marrying my girlfriend, I would SEEK OUT business that OPENLY appreciate ME and my money.......My God it's not that hard, we have the stinkin' internet!!!!!

Mole hill, meet mountain.......OMG Becky.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> I remember back in the old chat room days (blast from the past) how the christian rooms were continually inundated with irritable athiests. There would be raging fights in those rooms consistantly. I think it's easy enough to find that athiests interject their beliefs quite readily in places where they have no reason to find any freedom From religion.
> 
> Every atheist I've ever met has been very passionate and outspoken about their beliefs.


I think that for every passionate Atheist there are dozens of passionate Christians that we have to put up with. Athiests are irritable because of Christianity constantly telling us that we are somehow bad and need saving. The whole notion of being born in sin is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard and is used to guilt Christians into feeling they need someone to come along and save them. Then they're told that they are so bad that someone had to die to save them and the guilt piles up. I've heard people say "I fail God every day and yet he still loves me". Athiests are irritable because perfectly good people allow themselves to be told these negative things for no reason. 

We are born innocent. We are good people who make mistakes, learn from them and move on.

The problem here is that, like many other threads on this subject, we could debate this until the cows come home and we wouldn't get anywhere because both sides are so dug in and won't give an inch.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Truckinguy said:


> I think that for every passionate Atheist there are dozens of passionate Christians that we have to put up with. Athiests are irritable because of Christianity constantly telling us that we are somehow bad and need saving. The whole notion of being born in sin is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard and is used to guilt Christians into feeling they need someone to come along and save them. Then they're told that they are so bad that someone had to die to save them and the guilt piles up. I've heard people say "I fail God every day and yet he still loves me". Athiests are irritable because perfectly good people allow themselves to be told these negative things for no reason.
> 
> We are born innocent. We are good people who make mistakes, learn from them and move on.
> 
> The problem here is that, like many other threads on this subject, we could debate this until the cows come home and we wouldn't get anywhere because both sides are so dug in and won't give an inch.


This is exactly what I've head from every one of my atheist friends over the years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wouldn't it just make more sense to call a gay union something different? Like UNION? .


Just say your Takeid. LOL

[YOUTUBE]?v=dRkIWB3HIEs&spfreload=10[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well since it's a science /religion issue look at it like this. Science says evolution is for the betterment of a species. Every species primary goal is to grow is numbers and survive. So how does evolving a same sex attraction benefit a species? It doesn't. Therefore it goes against even nature and science. From a health standpoint both physical abs mental, true medical science sure doesnt support it.


I don't think it's evolved. If you look back over history you'll find that being gay has always been around. It's not the norm and nobody says it is. Even members of the LGBT community will tell you that it is a small percentage of society. I'm not sure why you think it is unhealthy, people who are intimate with each other are healthier than those who aren't. It doesn't matter if they are with someone of the same or opposite sex, intimacy has many health benefits. Two gay people who are happily together are healthier than two gay people who are trying to hide their sexuality and dealing with the public stigma of it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> They shouldn't.
> As long as things remain separate.
> It's when one, forces the other, to accomodate / bend to their will, when things get ugly.
> 
> ...


And if there is no business that will accommodate you? It's easy to dismiss someone who wants flowers or a cake but what of food, shelter or fuel. What happens when you and your hypothetical bride take a road trip for your honeymoon. It's 8 at night and you pull off the highway for the night, hungry, low on fuel and needing a place to sleep. No restaurant will serve you, no hotel will rent you a room and the gas station won't sell you fuel. No one should force them to do so, right? But what is your recourse. Travel on hoping the next burg is more accommodating? Plan every event and purchase in your life based on where and where not you are accepted?

No one's talking of forcing a Muslim to sell barbecue pork if they never sell barbecue pork. But we are talking of them be required to sell that great falafel they always sell to Jews, Christians, gays and straights.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I"m wondering how one can tell what religion or sexual preference people are when they walk in the door? Are people required to fill out a questionnaire before they are allowed to purchase the product or service?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And if there is no business that will accommodate you? It's easy to dismiss someone who wants flowers or a cake but what of food, shelter or fuel. What happens when you and your hypothetical bride take a road trip for your honeymoon. It's 8 at night and you pull off the highway for the night, hungry, low on fuel and needing a place to sleep. No restaurant will serve you, no hotel will rent you a room and the gas station won't sell you fuel. No one should force them to do so, right? But what is your recourse. Travel on hoping the next burg is more accommodating? Plan every event and purchase in your life based on where and where not you are accepted?
> 
> No one's talking of forcing a Muslim to sell barbecue pork if they never sell barbecue pork. But we are talking of them be required to sell that great falafel they always sell to Jews, Christians, gays and straights.



Exactly. I seem to be bringing up Jim Crow laws a lot today but does anyone think they were a good thing? Just replace gay with black... we already decided that everyone can eat at the lunch counter.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If there was no God there would be no athiest. They work very hard to protest someone they say isn't real. Lol



It is a lot less work to accept something is not real than to try and convince people something that cannot be seen IS real.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> I think that for every passionate Atheist there are dozens of passionate Christians that we have to put up with. Athiests are irritable because of Christianity constantly telling us that we are somehow bad and need saving. The whole notion of being born in sin is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard and is used to guilt Christians into feeling they need someone to come along and save them. Then they're told that they are so bad that someone had to die to save them and the guilt piles up. I've heard people say "I fail God every day and yet he still loves me". Athiests are irritable because perfectly good people allow themselves to be told these negative things for no reason.
> 
> We are born innocent. We are good people who make mistakes, learn from them and move on.
> 
> The problem here is that, like many other threads on this subject, we could debate this until the cows come home and we wouldn't get anywhere because both sides are so dug in and won't give an inch.


I won't deny that Christians are to be passionate about their Saviour. We are (or should be) because we care. I understand that people encounter "Christians" that are condemning and pushy, but our biblical instructions don't support that. None of that explains why an Athiest seeks out Christian venues to push their beliefs, though. If they don't care...if they aren't Evangelizing...then why bother?

We aren't born innocent...we're born without guilt. There's a difference...but what is innocence without an absolute moral standard anyway?

What's so hard about admitting we do wrong? Haven't you? I know I do...I wouldn't want a God who tolerated the injustices we see in the world eternally. I long for something better....I want to be a part of that something better. I don't have to fool myself into thinking I'm too awesome to need His help in order to see that day.

Very true...we won't convince each other. Christians are just sowers of seed, but God gives the increase. Anyone who will come to Him will do so because He awakened their heart and called them. I am not able to do that.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Wlover said:


> So if you believe there is no global warming, you therefore have faith there is no global warming then your religion is " No global warming"?


No, there is actually proof that there is global warming


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Doggonedog said:


> You might have a point if every human born was gay. Hypothetically the species would die out.
> 
> I'm curious, when did you chose to be straight?


When I seen my mom and dad loving each other and said to myself, ok. That's how it works. Cool. That looks right. Also it was confirmed when I seen my first booby.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> When I seen my mom and dad loving each other and said to myself, ok. That's how it works. Cool. That looks right. Also it was confirmed when I seen my first booby.


You didn't answer my question. When did you chose to be straight?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> When I seen my mom and dad loving each other and said to myself, ok. That's how it works. Cool. Also it was confirmed when I seen my first booby.


My friend Cindy had the same response when she saw her first, too. Cindy and Beth's kids see the love and respect their parents have for each other every day and say to themselves, ok. That's how it works. Cool.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Doggonedog said:


> You didn't answer my question. When did you chose to be straight?


I chose to be straight when I seen that was the way it works. All my early friends were boys no girls. I liked them much better. But my environment was mom's and dad's so naturally that's what set in as normal. I could have choose to keep liking boys more. But instead chose to like girls. Many gay men have families and come out late in life. Bruce Jenner comes to mind. They could live a normal family man life but choose not too.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I chose to be straight when I seen that was the way it works. All my early friends were boys no girls. I liked them much better. But my environment was mom's and dad's so naturally that's what set in as normal. I could have choose to keep liking boys more. But instead chose to like girls. Many gay men have families and come out late in life. Bruce Jenner comes to mind. They could live a normal family man life but choose not too.


So if you were exposed to homosexuality when young you would have chosen to be gay? That children chose their sexuality based on what they see around them?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Doggonedog said:


> So if you were exposed to homosexuality when young you would have chosen to be gay? That children chose their sexuality based on what they see around them?


Had a gay aunt and cousin. Both loved normal lives then my aunt was abused by her husband and went to women. My cousin was normal. His parents divorced and he gravitated to his mom and she babied him. He then started acting like a girl. So yes both were environmentally driven.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So my church can perform a Union ceremony for a gay couple but not a marriage ceremony. You're close. The government should get totally out of the marriage business. They should allow people to enter into a contract that conveys the same benefits marriage does now. What you or your church wish to call the ceremony codifying it and the following union can be up to you and your religion, or me and mine.


I agree. Now under the law marriage is considered a contract. I see no reason for not allowing someone to write up a contract with the same terms and entering into it with another person or even several persons (people?). 

The slight problem is in marriage there are a lot of items which are not specifically expressed in the contract that are only based on tradition but are written into the laws. So you'd have to make sure the contract was written in such a way to cover it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> You might have a point if every human born was gay. Hypothetically the species would die out.
> 
> I'm curious, when did you chose to be straight?


Do you really want to get into this here? If so I'm willing.

First I have to know a few things. Do you think sexual preference is a choice, genetic, environmental/mental or a combination?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I think that for every passionate Atheist there are dozens of passionate Christians that we have to put up with. Athiests are irritable because of Christianity constantly telling us that we are somehow bad and need saving. The whole notion of being born in sin is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard and is used to guilt Christians into feeling they need someone to come along and save them. Then they're told that they are so bad that someone had to die to save them and the guilt piles up. I've heard people say "I fail God every day and yet he still loves me". Athiests are irritable because perfectly good people allow themselves to be told these negative things for no reason.


Sorry but do you really think the force of law should be used to stop you from being irritated?

And the next time you are being irritated by a Christian telling you how bad you are tell them they should follow the teachings of Christ in Matthew 10:14. If they don't know it tell them to look it up the next time they think about talking to you again. FYI, it tells us if someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say we are to walk away from them.




Truckinguy said:


> We are born innocent. We are good people who make mistakes, learn from them and move on.


You haven't been around children much have you? Have you EVER seen a child which had to be taught to be 'bad'? I haven't. If what you state was true you would not have to teach a child to share, to play nice, to wait their turn, etc. From birth people are selfish and demanding.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I don't think it's evolved. If you look back over history you'll find that being gay has always been around. It's not the norm and nobody says it is. Even members of the LGBT community will tell you that it is a small percentage of society. I'm not sure why you think it is unhealthy, people who are intimate with each other are healthier than those who aren't. It doesn't matter if they are with someone of the same or opposite sex, intimacy has many health benefits. Two gay people who are happily together are healthier than two gay people who are trying to hide their sexuality and dealing with the public stigma of it.


If you think its genetic and wanted to rid it from humans the best thing to do is support gay marriage. If they are 'married' to the same sex they would not reproduce and after a while the gene would be removed from the species. How's this for a kick to the head; if you support gay marriage you are actually being anti gay.

Man I can have some fun with that logic


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And if there is no business that will accommodate you? It's easy to dismiss someone who wants flowers or a cake but what of food, shelter or fuel. What happens when you and your hypothetical bride take a road trip for your honeymoon. It's 8 at night and you pull off the highway for the night, hungry, low on fuel and needing a place to sleep. No restaurant will serve you, no hotel will rent you a room and the gas station won't sell you fuel. No one should force them to do so, right? But what is your recourse. Travel on hoping the next burg is more accommodating? Plan every event and purchase in your life based on where and where not you are accepted?


Is it not just a bit hypocritical that you want the freedom from government control to do what you want but at the same time want the government to force others to do something they do not want to because its for you?

Again I have to say you have NO RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by someone else. If you know, or even think, that you are likely to not be able to get food or fuel you should plan accordingly. With freedom comes responsibility. You should not plan to be able to FORCE someone to sell you anything. 




mmoetc said:


> No one's talking of forcing a Muslim to sell barbecue pork if they never sell barbecue pork. But we are talking of them be required to sell that great falafel they always sell to Jews, Christians, gays and straights.


You are talking about forcing someone to 1) do something they do not wish to do; 2) do something which is counter to their belief system; 3) give up control of their PRIVATE property. Do you really want to live in a nation where someone, anyone, has the power to do that? After all are not those three some of the basics of freedom?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Exactly. I seem to be bringing up Jim Crow laws a lot today but does anyone think they were a good thing? Just replace gay with black... we already decided that everyone can eat at the lunch counter.


Hum. . .let me see if I have this right. You think its _bad_ for the government to force you to *not* serve someone but you think its _good_ for the to force you *to* serve someone. Do you see anything sort of strange in that line of thinking?


Also there's a MAJOR difference in a private individual and the government. 

If the government was running a restaurant then it should have to allow anyone to eat there.

But the same thing does not apply to a privately owned restaurant. The individual owns the chairs, he owns the tables, he owns the food and he owns his labor. You have no right to force him to use his personal time and labor, privately owned chair, his privately owned table and his privately owned food for something he doesn't want to do.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Is it not just a bit hypocritical that you want the freedom from government control to do what you want but at the same time want the government to force others to do something they do not want to because its for you?
> 
> Again I have to say you have NO RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by someone else. If you know, or even think, that you are likely to not be able to get food or fuel you should plan accordingly. With freedom comes responsibility. You should not plan to be able to FORCE someone to sell you anything.
> 
> ...


Nope I'm talking about requiring someone to do what they do regardless of who is standing in front of them. There is no requirement for anyone to sell flowers. There is no requirement for anyone to provide flowers for a wedding. There is a requirement in DC that if one is going to open a business that does both of these things they must provide those services regardless of the sexuality or religion of those standing in front of them. 

The nation I'd like to live in, and the one I'm working towards, is one where consideration of a person's skin tone, religion, sexuality or anything else doesn't get in the way of a simple business transaction.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Some how some confuse a person being forced against their tenants of their faith to aid in the celebration of a sin.

I fail to see how renting to persons already having committed the sin is partaking in glorifying sin by rent or selling any thing else. 

I will not work to knowling aid in sin or celebrating it.

So you could ask me for any help, not related to the above and I would be their....maybe that is why I have no personal friction with any of the homosexuals who range from close friends to associates.

So, get marriage if you are homosexuals but I won't help lift a finger.

But, I will never reject helping you in any other way..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Nope I'm talking about requiring someone to do what they do regardless of who is standing in front of them. There is no requirement for anyone to sell flowers. There is no requirement for anyone to provide flowers for a wedding. There is a requirement in DC that if one is going to open a business that does both of these things they must provide those services regardless of the sexuality or religion of those standing in front of them.


Nice twist to say the same thing. 

You think its wrong for the government to force you in your business to not serve a black man even if you want to because *it* knows what's "right" but you have no problem with it forcing you in your business to serve a black man even if you don't want to because *it *knows what's "right".

And you don't see that as hypocritical?




mmoetc said:


> The nation I'd like to live in, and the one I'm working towards, is one where consideration of a person's skin tone, religion, sexuality or anything else doesn't get in the way of a simple business transaction.


I want to live in a nation where the government treats everyone equal and individuals have freedom. If you, like me, want to judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin you should have that freedom. If on the other hand you want to judge people based on their skin color you should also have that freedom. 

Like it or not for you to have freedom other people must have the freedom to be jerks if they wish and the government should not have the power to force them to do what it thinks is the 'nice' thing.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Sorry but do you really think the force of law should be used to stop you from being irritated?
> 
> And the next time you are being irritated by a Christian telling you how bad you are tell them they should follow the teachings of Christ in Matthew 10:14. If they don't know it tell them to look it up the next time they think about talking to you again. FYI, it tells us if someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say we are to walk away from them.
> 
> ...


I"m the oldest of eight and I have a few nieces and nephews. Our family has a pretty wide social circle which includes a lot of kids. We are put in families and have social structures so the adults can guide the kids on how to behave, what to eat, what the dangers in life are and any other skills that contribute to our survival. We're not born bad enough that a guy had to die because of it.

Selfish and demanding are survival skills that are needed if the child is born into unfortunate circumstances. If a child is born into a stable social situation that behavior is no longer needed and can be corrected by an adult, some people more successfully than others, of course...


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> If you think its genetic and wanted to rid it from humans the best thing to do is support gay marriage. If they are 'married' to the same sex they would not reproduce and after a while the gene would be removed from the species. How's this for a kick to the head; if you support gay marriage you are actually being anti gay.
> 
> Man I can have some fun with that logic


I actually have no idea if it is genetic or a learned behaviour. I don't have any problem with it so it matters nothing to me how a person came to be gay. 

Your logic makes no sense. It doesn't matter if gay people are married or not, they can still reproduce either way. Gay women have babies all the time, usually by AI or they could do it the natural way if they choose to. Gay men can use a surrogate mother to have a baby.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The progress we have made. Astounding.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I"m the oldest of eight and I have a few nieces and nephews. Our family has a pretty wide social circle which includes a lot of kids. We are put in families and have social structures so the adults can guide the kids on how to behave, what to eat, what the dangers in life are and any other skills that contribute to our survival. We're not born bad enough that a guy had to die because of it.
> 
> Selfish and demanding are survival skills that are needed if the child is born into unfortunate circumstances. If a child is born into a stable social situation that behavior is no longer needed and can be corrected by an adult, some people more successfully than others, of course...


It seems you are agreeing with me. You admit the 'bad' behavior is born into us and is only "corrected by an adult". To me that says we are all born 'evil' and must be taught to be 'good'. History has shown us its quite easy to allow the evil within us to surface and take control. Very good modern examples are 1930s Germany, 1970s Cambodia and 1990s Rwanda and Bosnia.

On the other hand it takes major social pressure and laws to keep society 'good'.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

HDRider said:


> The progress we have made. Astounding.


Some see it as progress. Others see it as moral degeneration. So in some eyes we are on the right path. In others eyes we are going to hell in a handbasket. And based on the things happening in society and around the world daily, is easy to see which direction seems more likely.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I actually have no idea if it is genetic or a learned behaviour.


It does when you start talking about the legalities of it. If you think its learned behavior then you have to think it can be unlearned, don't let the gay rights people hear you say THAT. Also if you think its a learned or choice then it being a civil right really becomes blurred.





Truckinguy said:


> I don't have any problem with it so it matters nothing to me how a person came to be gay.


I don't either. Right up to the point it starts infringing on the rights of others.




Truckinguy said:


> Your logic makes no sense. It doesn't matter if gay people are married or not, they can still reproduce either way. Gay women have babies all the time, usually by AI or they could do it the natural way if they choose to. Gay men can use a surrogate mother to have a baby.


Sure it does. How difficult and expensive is it to use AI? How difficult and expensive is it to use a surrogate mother? 

The number of gays having children will be much smaller using those options vs back in the old days when gays lived in the shadows and quite often married and had kids. Bring it out in the open means fewer of the will feel the need to live the straight life in public which again means fewer of them having children.

Again if you believe its genetic and want to reduce it in the species you should support gay marriage because it will reduce the number of children produced by people carrying the gene.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> It seems you are agreeing with me. You admit the 'bad' behavior is born into us and is only "corrected by an adult". To me that says we are all born 'evil' and must be taught to be 'good'. History has shown us its quite easy to allow the evil within us to surface and take control. Very good modern examples are 1930s Germany, 1970s Cambodia and 1990s Rwanda and Bosnia.
> 
> On the other hand it takes major social pressure and laws to keep society 'good'.


Not quite. Your interpretation of it is "evil", I call it survival skills. Nothing bad enough that someone had to die for us. 

I think you'll find that the most violent places in the world are generally also the places with the lowest education levels. A higher education also coincides with a drop in religious affiliation. One good way toward solving the world's problems is education, specially the women and children in third world countries. Maybe as we become more educated we will start erasing some of our discriminatory practices and these anti discrimination laws won't be necessary anymore.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> It does when you start talking about the legalities of it. If you think its learned behavior then you have to think it can be unlearned, don't let the gay rights people hear you say THAT. Also if you think its a learned or choice then it being a civil right really becomes blurred.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your assuming that being gay is hereditary. I don't know if it is or not and, again, it doesn't matter to me because I have no moral, ethical, legal or logistical problem with it. I think if gay people wanted to have children they would find a way to do it. I'm sure a lot of it would be eventually covered by health plans at some point, if not already.

I support gay marriage because I like to promote things that bring joy and happiness to other's lives.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> Not quite. Your interpretation of it is "evil", I call it survival skills. Nothing bad enough that someone had to die for us.
> 
> I think you'll find that the most violent places in the world are generally also the places with the lowest education levels. A higher education also coincides with a drop in religious affiliation. One good way toward solving the world's problems is education, specially the women and children in third world countries. Maybe as we become more educated we will start erasing some of our discriminatory practices and these anti discrimination laws won't be necessary anymore.


Another "atheist are smarter than Christians" comment.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

So education makes more people non believers? Funny. Some of the smartest men who ever lived were believers. Not only that I read recently where Christian colleges were putting out more 4.0 GPA students than non Christian Colleges. Who would have thought. Being smarter actually makes you more foolish.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Another "atheist are smarter than Christians" comment.


No, Atheists are not smarter than Christians, in fact, one study I saw showed that some denominations of Christians showed a higher education level than Atheists. It also showed that Jehovah Witnesses had by far the lowest education. Pick your study, I guess. However, in many third world countries religious affiliation is higher then in many industrialized countries, likely because the church is more of a social support due to socioeconomic factors. In more modern countries, which also have a higher education factor, church affiliation is less.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Had a gay aunt and cousin. Both loved normal lives then my aunt was abused by her husband and went to women. My cousin was normal. His parents divorced and he gravitated to his mom and she babied him. He then started acting like a girl. So yes both were environmentally driven.


Seriously??


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Your assuming that being gay is hereditary. I don't know if it is or not and, again, it doesn't matter to me because I have no moral, ethical, legal or logistical problem with it. I think if gay people wanted to have children they would find a way to do it.


I have no proof one way or another but my leaning is that abnormal sexual behavior is more linked to the mental/environmental side than the genetics. 




Truckinguy said:


> I'm sure a lot of it would be eventually covered by health plans at some point, if not already.


Which is another issue all together. When did pregnancy become an illness to be covered by health insurance?




Truckinguy said:


> I support gay marriage because I like to promote things that bring joy and happiness to other's lives.


And not being married to someone makes people sad? I know a lot of people who are not married but are quite happy. 

But seeing as you think that way might you send me a couple of thousand dollars? Having a new 4WD truck sure would bring a lot of joy and happiness to my life. Kick in a bit more because having the hydraulics on my tractor not working is making me very sad. Also I'd be over joyed to have AC in my old trailer because it really sucks to live in an old steel box in a very hot very humid place w/o AC. :heh:


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> I have no proof one way or another but my leaning is that abnormal sexual behavior is more linked to the mental/environmental side than the genetics.
> 
> *Funny, you are not the first to miss the point. Being gay is not about sex, it's about two people loving each other.* *If it was about sex then you would have to discriminate against every person who engaged in anything except the missionary position for the purpose of procreation because anything else would be considered "abnormal".*
> 
> ...


I wish I could help you out but I'm going to put that money toward the new turkeys that are coming in May, the renovation of a chicken coop into a turkey coop, addition on the main coop, fencing for the turkeys and body work on my old truck, all of which will bring joy and happiness to my own life.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .let me see if I have this right. You think its _bad_ for the government to force you to *not* serve someone but you think its _good_ for the to force you *to* serve someone. Do you see anything sort of strange in that line of thinking?
> 
> 
> Also there's a MAJOR difference in a private individual and the government.
> ...


I do find your line of thinking strange because even after reading it repeatedly I fail to understand it or understand why such thinking is attributed to me. Clarify if you wish.

I'm not asking the restaurant owner to do anything he doesn't wish to do. I'm not saying he has to provide tables, food or cooking expertise. If he doesn't wish to he shouldn't. I am requiring that if his business is open to the public he accommodate all the public. If he wishes to limit his clientele there are business models that allow him to do this and serve only who he wishes without violating any law. He can avail himself of any of those and I'll have no complaint. But if he invites me in and then denies me service based on my my race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other protected class in a given jurisdiction he'll face legal recourse. His choice.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Lets replace this gays and cakes argument with something more sensible and see if the concept still works. Let's say I walk into Goldstein's Kosher Deli. I approach the counter and order a hot ham sandwich with bacon. Do I have a right to be upset when I am told that the business will not accommodate my wish? I can get a ham sandwich from almost any other sandwich shop. I believe the government should not have the right to compel the deli to serve me against their wishes. I don't see how the deli counter is any different than a cake shop, but no one is threatening to burn down sandwich shops. This RFA has nothing to do with discrimination but everything to do with preserving individuals rights to use their property how they wish.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FutureFarm said:


> Lets replace this gays and cakes argument with something more sensible and see if the concept still works. Let's say I walk into Goldstein's Kosher Deli. I approach the counter and order a hot ham sandwich with bacon. Do I have a right to be upset when I am told that the business will not accommodate my wish? I can get a ham sandwich from almost any other sandwich shop. I believe the government should not have the right to compel the deli to serve me against their wishes. I don't see how the deli counter is any different than a cake shop, but no one is threatening to burn down sandwich shops. This RFA has nothing to do with discrimination but everything to do with preserving individuals rights to use their property how they wish.


Can't force someone to offer something they don't already offer. The cake bake bakes cakes already. They don't get to decide what the customer used the cake for.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I do find your line of thinking strange because even after reading it repeatedly I fail to understand it or understand why such thinking is attributed to me. Clarify if you wish.
> *
> I'm not asking the restaurant owner to do anything he doesn't wish to do.*
> *I'm not saying* he has to provide tables, food or cooking expertise.
> ...


Contradiction party of one......

And this new law does exactly what you "require".
Allows a business owner to exercise his freedom of religion by refusing to break faith. Without violating any law.

I had to read this multiple times because I thought "there is no way this is saying what it's saying" but it is??

No one will convince you otherwise, and although I am open for listening to the other side; I am not interested in one group no matter how small or large in numbers, trying to push their 'rights' and their 'agenda' down everyone else's throat.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FutureFarm said:


> Lets replace this gays and cakes argument with something more sensible and see if the concept still works. Let's say I walk into Goldstein's Kosher Deli. I approach the counter and order a hot ham sandwich with bacon. Do I have a right to be upset when I am told that the business will not accommodate my wish? I can get a ham sandwich from almost any other sandwich shop. I believe the government should not have the right to compel the deli to serve me against their wishes. I don't see how the deli counter is any different than a cake shop, but no one is threatening to burn down sandwich shops. This RFA has nothing to do with discrimination but everything to do with preserving individuals rights to use their property how they wish.


The question is whether the deli serves the sandwich you asked for. If ham and bacon are no where on their menu you have no expectation of purchasing said sandwich there. No discriminatory act. Is it discrimination if your local Ford dealer won't sell you a brand new Toyota? No. It's not his business to sell you a Toyota. If he refuses to even let you look at that new F150 on the show room floor because he doesn't believe blacks, gays or Methodists have the right to purchase a truck he has a problem with the law.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Contradiction party of one......
> 
> And this new law does exactly what you "require".
> Allows a business owner to exercise his freedom of religion by refusing to break faith. Without violating any law.
> ...


So, you have a problem with ALL civil rights law? Blacks, religion, women, gender? Or just sexual orientation?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> The question is whether the deli serves the sandwich you asked for. If ham and bacon are no where on their menu you have no expectation of purchasing said sandwich there. No discriminatory act. Is it discrimination if your local Ford dealer won't sell you a brand new Toyota? No. It's not his business to sell you a Toyota. If he refuses to even let you look at that new F150 on the show room floor because he doesn't believe blacks, gays or Methodists have the right to purchase a truck he has a problem with the law.


Exactly. Thank you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Contradiction party of one......
> 
> And this new law does exactly what you "require".
> Allows a business owner to exercise his freedom of religion by refusing to break faith. Without violating any law.
> ...


No contradiction. Open a private club with rules of membership clearly defined. They exist everywhere. If I meet the criteria I can choose to join or not join. I have no expectation that if I don't meet the criteria I will be allowed into the club. In an establishment open to the public the rules of membership are equally clear. It's the public, any member of the public. You, as a business owner, are free to define your business in any way you wish. You just aren't free to redefine it based on who stands before you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Doggonedog said:


> So, you have a problem with ALL civil rights law? Blacks, religion, women, gender? Or just sexual orientation?


I have a problem with one human being thinking THEY ARE OWED something because of race,religion,gender,orientation,and are MORE than willing to stomp on another human's rights, etc.

I have a problem with one human being FORCING another human being to chose between breaking the Law and breaking Faith.

I have a problem with one human being thinking they are ABOVE another human being.

I have a problem with labels. I think they suck and people who use them are small minded and do not see an individuals potential. Labels limit potential.

If a business is operated by all men; served men, served by men, and looked down on women..........that would be the LAST place I would want to do business.
It would not even be on my radar.

DRAMA QUEENS act like 93% of all businesses are gonna hang a sign out front that says "NO______ ALLOWED" when in actuality businesses are TRIPPING over each other to hang the sign "WE SERVE EVERYONE".

OMG Becky, mole hill meet mountain.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have a problem with one human being thinking THEY ARE OWED something because of race,religion,gender,orientation,and are MORE than willing to stomp on another human's rights, etc.
> 
> I have a problem with one human being FORCING another human being to chose between breaking the Law and breaking Faith.
> 
> ...


If you want rational adult discussion the name calling has to stop.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I went back and read the last paragraph of the article in the OP and there are so many things listed there that they might as well replace the paragraph with the word "everybody". The only thing on there that might make me refuse service in a theoretical store that I owned would be arrest record or conviction record although it would depend on what they were arrested for and if they never mentioned it, I would never know anyway. Also, if they had served their sentence and paid their legal debt to society I would have no basis to refuse service.

Everyone is welcome in my store unless you're acting like a jerk in which case you're being disruptive and you can get your butt out of my store.

Hmmm, didn't see truck drivers on that list. I"m going to have to write a letter...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Doggonedog said:


> If you want rational adult discussion the name calling has to stop.


It's not name calling, it's "labeling". 
That's what society loves; labels.

Those who make something out of nothing to draw attention to themselves, are labeled as "drama queens".
Those who can only think of themselves and their way are "small minded".

It's just a label. 
I thought that was ok? 
I have seen it throughout this whole thread? 
I was just 'going with the flow"?

Name calling would be to say something about someone that is not true, for derogitory purpose (example if someone called me "fat").

Hope that clears things up!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Here's a good one.

My liquor license gives me the RIGHT to refuse service to someone who is (1) under age (2) someone without the proper identification (3) someone who appears to be under the influence.
THAT is the Law.

Now, what happens if a (here comes a list of "labels" not "name calling"):
Black man
Indian woman
Gay man
Disabled woman
Pentecostal man
A man who dresses like a woman.
A woman who dresses like a man
A white man
A white woman
Comes into my bar w/o the proper identification and I refuse service?
Am I now going to get sued, because I am following the Law?
Because I am being accused of discrimination?
OR
Said individuals come into my bar, intoxicated/under the influence (alcohol, or drugs, you pick) and I refuse service? Am I going to be "labeled" a bigot/hater, etc because I am following the LAW and refusing service?

Will they play the 'label card'?
Who knows.
Don't care.
I will refuse service because the Law says I can.
AND IF I DON'T refuse service, I can be fined, and my license can be revoked; and that takes away my livelyhood.

HUH?

People need to calm down and eat some fruit
Mel Gibson: Signs.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It's not name calling, it's "labeling".
> That's what society loves; labels.
> 
> Those who make something out of nothing to draw attention to themselves, are labeled as "drama queens".
> ...


I'm a bit embarrassed I have to explain this, but "drama queens" and "OMG Becky, mole hill meet mountain." Is name calling, derogatory, belittling, and rude.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

hmmmmm well I am from the generation of "thick skinned folks".
Today's generation needs to get a little thicker skin and not be so quick to get their feathers in a fluff.

I also see a lot of "I am losing this debate so I will revert / divert attention from that fact and point out something small and make a case of it.".

Stay on point. 

Wording says so much. 
I worked with a kid, that was an A #1. certified Narcissist. 
If there was a top 10 signs of a Nac, he was all 11.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms.html

Anyway, when someone would point out that he was wrong about something, or caught him in one of his lies........he would revert to word manipulation and 'flip the script' and then verbally assault that person (to their face and behind their back) under the guise of "hey everyone look at this" to take all eyes off of him.
He was a piece of work.

Anyway sorry for the tangent......back to the original thought:



> I have a problem with one human being thinking THEY ARE OWED something because of race,religion,gender,orientation,and are MORE than willing to stomp on another human's rights, etc.
> 
> I have a problem with one human being FORCING another human being to chose between breaking the Law and breaking Faith.
> 
> ...


There, same thought, same meaning, different words.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

If that's name calling you would pass out at some of the things I've heard people called.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

To me it seems as if some of the people that are all for pushing the 'Marriage; one man/one woman' bills through and demanding that gay people call their marriages unions are the same ones who are standing up on this issue saying "You can't force your beliefs on to that person or make them go against their beliefs'.

I have said it before, no business should be forced into serving someone or some group that the owner does not wish to. Simple terms. No need to force them to do something because the customer will find another store that will. Now, yes, some will say what about gas, lodging, food. Sorry, anyone that would deny basic necessities to a person based on color, religion, looks would not be in business for long and someone would fill that slot.

But, hopefully this issue will open those peoples eyes up and they will realize that 'forcing' State and Feds to recognize marriage as one man/one woman is forcing their beliefs onto others, the exact opposite of their stance in this instance.

So kudos for all the people that are standing up saying that people should not be able to force their beliefs onto others, now we should have less support for the Marriage: One Man/One woman crowd. Kudos indeed.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My faith defined marriage prior the the formation of the United States. Fit is a sacrament in my faith. Factual question why the need for a license....permission from the government to practice my faith.... and to redefine tenants of my faith.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> If it was about sex then you would have to discriminate against every person who engaged in anything except the missionary position for the purpose of procreation because anything else would be considered "abnormal".


You are missing the point. I'll explain it once again. Say you find socks erotic and get a big thrill when you wife wears them during sex. That would not be considered abnormal sexual behavior. OTOH if you could *only* become sexually aroused if there were socks involved then that would be considered abnormal sexual behavior. See the difference? 




Truckinguy said:


> Just did a quick Google and apparently Ontario is introducing limited coverage for one round only of IVF. Quebec now pays for between three to six rounds and Manitoba offers a tax credit to defray some of the cost. There are also non profit organizations who will help straight or gay couples conceive.


Again there are going to be finical problems when you start using insurance to pay for elective medical treatments. 




Truckinguy said:


> I'm not even sure how to reply to this because it completely misses the point. Besides the fact I have no problem with it, I would rather support a gay couple at their wedding rather than cause them grief by condemning them for something that doesn't affect me negatively in any way.


That's fine if that's your moral code. And I would not want to use the power of the government to force you to break your moral code any more than I want it to use that power to force me to break mine.

But it can affect you negatively. We are currently forced to pay for other's medical care and if as you say insurance is going to start to cover the cost of gays having children then you are going to have to either spend more time working or cut your standard of living to pay the extra cost. Then there are the social effects of not have a duel role model family, i.e. having a male and female raising the children.




Truckinguy said:


> I wish I could help you out but I'm going to put that money toward the new turkeys that are coming in May, the renovation of a chicken coop into a turkey coop, addition on the main coop, fencing for the turkeys and body work on my old truck, all of which will bring joy and happiness to my own life.


If I told you I needed money to pay for the wedding cake for my gay wedding would you send me a few bucks


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> If you want rational adult discussion the name calling has to stop.


Really defining facts makes for better discussions. Limiting words that are not cuss just because you are offended is not adult. 

I avoid the factual word for male homosexuals thus have to type homosexual because of hypersensitive persons with both limited vocabulary.

xXxX was the male term for homosexual as lesbian is for female homosexuals. xXxX also is a cigarette or a bundle of sticks..

But hypersensitive dramatic persons have expressed a slight over the term and take as a dirty word.

Too many control people by being offended.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Doggonedog said:


> I'm a bit embarrassed I have to explain this, but "drama queens" and "OMG Becky, mole hill meet mountain." Is name calling, derogatory, belittling, and rude.


Are you sure you are embarrassed and not attempting to controll via belittling.

That's what I see.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I do find your line of thinking strange because even after reading it repeatedly I fail to understand it or understand why such thinking is attributed to me. Clarify if you wish.
> 
> I'm not asking the restaurant owner to do anything he doesn't wish to do. I'm not saying he has to provide tables, food or cooking expertise. If he doesn't wish to he shouldn't. I am requiring that if his business is open to the public he accommodate all the public. If he wishes to limit his clientele there are business models that allow him to do this and serve only who he wishes without violating any law. He can avail himself of any of those and I'll have no complaint. But if he invites me in and then denies me service based on my my race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other protected class in a given jurisdiction he'll face legal recourse. His choice.


BTW, if you read nothing else here I would like for you to at least read the last three paragraphs. With that said.

Read what you have written and think real hard. I mean really look at the words you used.

You say you don't wish the government to force someone to do what they do not want yet you use the following words; "violating any law", "protected class in a given jurisdiction", "face legal recourse".

First off you are starting with the idea that a person must have government permission before he can use his individual privately owned items and his individual labor to start a business and make a living. If he doesn't get that permission the government has the power to use force to shut him down.

Second. You are CLEARLY saying that you want and even expect the government to use force to stop him from doing any action you/it think is bad. If he does something bad, i.e. against the law which protects specific classes, he will (your very words) "face legal recourse". That "legal recourse" is backed up with the threat of force.

Now think about this and honestly answer my questions at the end. 

What if in 1955 there was a white restaurant owner in Selma AL who had a strong personal belief that segregation was wrong. Such a strong belief that he wanted to allow blacks to eat in the same room as whites. Would you say that he should not have been able to do that because he would be violating the law by not properly treating a protected class in a given jurisdiction and he should face legal recourse? Or would you have viewed him as a hero for standing up for his convictions? 

Yet because our hypothetical restaurant owner of today beliefs don't line up with yours you view him as a villain. See the hypocrisy now?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> So, you have a problem with ALL civil rights law? Blacks, religion, women, gender? Or just sexual orientation?


I have a problem with ANY law which:

Does not view all citizens as equals.

Does not treat all citizens equally. 

Forces an individual to act against his beliefs (whether I agree with them or not).

Restricts the right of the individual to have full control of his private property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No contradiction. Open a private club with rules of membership clearly defined. They exist everywhere. If I meet the criteria I can choose to join or not join. I have no expectation that if I don't meet the criteria I will be allowed into the club. In an establishment open to the public the rules of membership are equally clear. It's the public, any member of the public. You, as a business owner, are free to define your business in any way you wish. You just aren't free to redefine it based on who stands before you.


You might want to check the laws before you open your private WASP club where you rules state that blacks, Jews and/or Catholics are not allowed membership. If not you just might wind up facing a judge.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Here's a good one.


My liquor license gives me the RIGHT to refuse service to someone who is (1) under age (2) someone without the proper identification (3) someone who appears to be under the influence.
THAT is the Law.

Ahh. . .*WRONG*. Your license *removes *your "RIGHT" to be able to serve those people because it thinks it knows what's best. If you do try to use your right to sell your private property (I'm assuming you own the booze) to one of these 'protected classes' the government can and most likely will use force to stop you from selling any more liquor.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Really defining facts makes for better discussions. Limiting words that are not cuss just because you are offended is not adult.
> 
> I avoid the factual word for male homosexuals thus have to type homosexual because of hypersensitive persons with both limited vocabulary.
> 
> ...


And if you add "ed" to it, it means exhausted. I get a lot of strange looks when I say I'm "xxxged out". To me its a common term. I also get strange looks when I use the proper term when talking about a female dog.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> BTW, if you read nothing else here I would like for you to at least read the last three paragraphs. With that said.
> 
> Read what you have written and think real hard. I mean really look at the words you used.
> 
> ...


If you've read any of my posts the answer is obvious. Agreeing or disagreeing with the stance taken plays no part in my feelings. I have repeatedly said that I support and respect both the bakers and florists for having the strength and courage to stand up for their convictions. I believe their stances, and yours, to be wrong and am glad the courts have thus far agreed with me. I don't personally know them so I can't judge thÃ¨m as being evil or mean spirited. Putting words in my mouth and attempting to express my feelings doesn't make me a hypocrite but it does say something about you.

To address your first point. We are a nation of laws. It's how civilized societies work. One can learn to live within the framework of those laws or be branded a criminal. One can also work to change laws they disagree with. I doubt you would much like the total freedom you espouse. I could be wrong. There are those who thrive and prosper in chaos.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As a nation of laws why is the constitution and the rider...the bill of rights over looked.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If you've read any of my posts the answer is obvious. Agreeing or disagreeing with the stance taken plays no part in my feelings. I have repeatedly said that I support and respect both the bakers and florists for having the strength and courage to stand up for their convictions. I believe their stances, and yours, to be wrong and am glad the courts have thus far agreed with me. I don't personally know them so I can't judge thÃ¨m as being evil or mean spirited. Putting words in my mouth and attempting to express my feelings doesn't make me a hypocrite but it does say something about you.
> 
> To address your first point. We are a nation of laws. It's how civilized societies work. One can learn to live within the framework of those laws or be branded a criminal. One can also work to change laws they disagree with. I doubt you would much like the total freedom you espouse. I could be wrong. There are those who thrive and prosper in chaos.


You failed to answer my direct questions. I'll make it easy and only ask one. Would you support, in our nation of laws, the full force of the government be brought against the 1955 Selma AL restaurant owner?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You failed to answer my direct questions. I'll make it easy and only ask one. Would you support, in our nation of laws, the full force of the government be brought against the 1955 Selma AL restaurant owner?


I'll answer as forthrightly as possible. I would accept that the laws could be used against them and advocate that the restaurant owner do what the florist and baker are doing now. Standing up for that which they believe is right. No unjust law ever got changed because people didn't challenge and sacrifice for that change. I would have supported the restaurant owner just as you and others are supporting the baker, florist and pizza maker. We all have the right to protest and work against that which we see as unjust even if we cannot agree on that which is unjust.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> My faith defined marriage prior the the formation of the United States. Fit is a sacrament in my faith. Factual question why the need for a license....permission from the government to practice my faith.... and to redefine tenants of my faith.


But why does your faith get to determine the laws and reality of this Nation? 

I agree that if the need for a license was to be removed all issues would be solved, but that is never going to be the case. Perhaps if the people speaking out on the marriage issue were trying to get the gov''t out of the marriage business I would buy that they don't want to push their faith on other.

Or if those same people were fighting for their right 'as defined by their faith' to have the definition of marriage determined by the actual full breadth of their religious texts. 

No one is asking to redefine the tenants of your faith, not me at least. But your tenants of faith shouldn't get the right to define how others choose to live THEIR lives, should it?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I'll answer as forthrightly as possible. I would accept that the laws could be used against them and advocate that the restaurant owner do what the florist and baker are doing now. Standing up for that which they believe is right. No unjust law ever got changed because people didn't challenge and sacrifice for that change. I would have supported the restaurant owner just as you and others are supporting the baker, florist and pizza maker. We all have the right to protest and work against that which we see as unjust even if we cannot agree on that which is unjust.


Should you add standing up for unjust court rulings that violate the bill of rights?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> You failed to answer my direct questions. I'll make it easy and only ask one. Would you support, in our nation of laws, the full force of the government be brought against the 1955 Selma AL restaurant owner?


I would say yes, remembering that our Constitution is the supreme law..... rendering any law useless, null and void if it does not meet the standards set forth by the Constitution itself. This of course would defeat the vast majority of the Jim Crow laws in place during that time period.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> But why does your faith get to determine the laws and reality of this Nation?
> 
> I agree that if the need for a license was to be removed all issues would be solved, but that is never going to be the case. Perhaps if the people speaking out on the marriage issue were trying to get the gov''t out of the marriage business I would buy that they don't want to push their faith on other.
> 
> ...



In as much as a car is clearly understood to be a certain object and a tractor another object marriage has historical no included homosexuals, biblically it is a sacrament, government was not historically involved with qualifying what a marriage was as that was left to the individuals.

Marriage had a clear understanding now it doesn't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> In as much as a car is clearly understood to be a certain object and a tractor another object marriage has historical no included homosexuals, biblically it is a sacrament, government was not historically involved with qualifying what a marriage was as that was left to the individuals.
> 
> *Marriage had a clear understanding now it doesn't.*


Yeppers, in days gone by when a feller got married he knew what it meant... His woman was basically his property to do with as he durn well pleased.... In todays crazy mixed up world those rules no longer seem to apply! Where will all this insanity end?!?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, in days gone by when a feller got married he knew what it meant... His woman was basically his property to do with as he durn well pleased.... In todays crazy mixed up world those rules no longer seem to apply! Where will all this insanity end?!?


A biblical family lives by the order God placed us in. Man is head of the wife and Jesus the head of the man. My family lives this way. My wife and I are a team. But if we cant agree, I make the decision on the subject. It's the main reason so many marriages fail. Cant have two chiefs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> In as much as a car is clearly understood to be a certain object and a tractor another object marriage has historical no included homosexuals, biblically it is a sacrament, government was not historically involved with qualifying what a marriage was as that was left to the individuals.
> 
> Marriage had a clear understanding now it doesn't.


And a cake is just a combination of flour, eggs, sugar and other tasty bits and flowers are just pretty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'll answer as forthrightly as possible. I would accept that the laws could be used against them and advocate that the restaurant owner do what the florist and baker are doing now. Standing up for that which they believe is right. No unjust law ever got changed because people didn't challenge and sacrifice for that change. I would have supported the restaurant owner just as you and others are supporting the baker, florist and pizza maker. We all have the right to protest and work against that which we see as unjust even if we cannot agree on that which is unjust.


Now I'm a bit confused. On one hand you seem to be saying you agree that the government should not have the power but at the same time you seem to support governmental force when its for something you agree with but not if its something you don't like. . .

Example. You don't seem to mind if the government forces a racist to serve a person of different race but you seem (you never did clearly say so) don't like it when it forces an unprejudiced person not to serve a person.

For me freedom requires us to accept somethings we disagree with. To put a twist on Voltaire 'I may not like the way you think or act but I'll defend to the death your right to think that or act that way. As long as it does not infringe on another's rights.' Freedom doesn't only flow one way.

If you want to be a bigoted racist I don't want to be around you and I would not support your business. I would quite probably try to rally others to avoid your business as well. But at the same time I would not try to get the government to pass a law to stop you from thinking or even acting like a bigoted racist as long as you were not infringing on another individual's rights.

An individual does not have the right to be sold anything. Not a cake, not a hamburger, not a car, not a house. Therefore not getting sold any of those does not violate anyone's rights. In these cases the ONLY ones getting their rights violate are the private citizens who are being forced by the government to: one, do something counter to their belief system; two, give up their private property to an individual they do not wish to have it.

Is that really the type of country you want to live in?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say yes, remembering that our Constitution is the supreme law..... rendering any law useless, null and void if it does not meet the standards set forth by the Constitution itself. This of course would defeat the vast majority of the Jim Crow laws in place during that time period.


Ok, but the constitution was written to limit the power of government. As I have stated over and over the government MUST treat all citizens equally.

We are not talking about a government ran organization, we are talking about a private business dealing with a private property transaction between two (or more) private citizens.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And a cake is just a combination of flour, eggs, sugar and other tasty bits and flowers are just pretty.


And a dog is an animal but if you raised it as a pet do you think you should have the right to refuse to sell it to someone who is going to eat it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> And a dog is an animal but if you raised it as a pet do you think you should have the right to refuse to sell it to someone who is going to eat it?


Strawman. Cake was meant to be eaten.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Now I'm a bit confused. On one hand you seem to be saying you agree that the government should not have the power but at the same time you seem to support governmental force when its for something you agree with but not if its something you don't like. . .
> 
> Example. You don't seem to mind if the government forces a racist to serve a person of different race but you seem (you never did clearly say so) don't like it when it forces an unprejudiced person not to serve a person.
> 
> ...


This issue seems to center around infringing upon the next fellers rights. Thats what gets tricky. In my mind anyone with the price of admission should be allowed to see the elephant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> And a dog is an animal but if you raised it as a pet do you think you should have the right to refuse to sell it to someone who is going to eat it?


Nope, if your dog is for sale its for sale and once you sell it its none of your business what the next owner does with the dog. That is the whole thing about owning something.... you control its destiny... once you sell it you give up your control over it. 

I had a lady once get very upset with me for spending "her money" (my wages) on beer. I had to carefully explain to her that she spent her money on my labor, and it was then "my money" which I had every right to spend as I saw fit.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Strawman. Cake was meant to be eaten.


According to some people so were dogs but not my point. The point is do you or do you not have the right to determine who you sell your property to based on what they are going to do with it after it is out of your control.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This issue seems to center around infringing upon the next fellers rights. Thats what gets tricky. In my mind anyone with the price of admission should be allowed to see the elephant.


Not really. Its very simple you have NO right anything someone must provide to you. Therefore I can not violate your right by not allowing you have something of mine.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, if your dog is for sale its for sale and once you sell it its none of your business what the next owner does with the dog. That is the whole thing about owning something.... you control its destiny... once you sell it you give up your control over it.


But we are talking about BEFORE its sold. Until the transaction is complete then the dog is still mine. Do you think you have the right to have the government to force me to sell it to you if I don't want to?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> According to some people so were dogs but not my point. The point is do you or do you not have the right to determine who you sell your property to based on what they are going to do with it after it is out of your control.


That is simple. You don't Have the right to ask.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> According to some people so were dogs but not my point. The point is do you or do you not have the right to determine who you sell your property to based on what they are going to do with it after it is out of your control.


That is simple. You don't.have the right to force the customer to tell you what they will do with it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You might want to check the laws before you open your private WASP club where you rules state that blacks, Jews and/or Catholics are not allowed membership. If not you just might wind up facing a judge.


Maybe I could ask him if he belongs to one if the golf clubs. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html. With certain limitations a private club can set any membership rules it wishes. Augusta National didn't invite Condoleeza Rice to join because the law required them to but because public pressure did.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Now I'm a bit confused. On one hand you seem to be saying you agree that the government should not have the power but at the same time you seem to support governmental force when its for something you agree with but not if its something you don't like. . .
> 
> Example. You don't seem to mind if the government forces a racist to serve a person of different race but you seem (you never did clearly say so) don't like it when it forces an unprejudiced person not to serve a person.
> 
> ...


I tend to think that if the world were made up only of people like you and me this discussion wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe I could ask him if he belongs to one if the golf clubs. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html. With certain limitations a private club can set any membership rules it wishes. Augusta National didn't invite Condoleeza Rice to join because the law required them to but because public pressure did.


So, some people freely choose to bow....Some have a back bone


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> But we are talking about BEFORE its sold. Until the transaction is complete then the dog is still mine. Do you think you have the right to have the government to force me to sell it to you if I don't want to?


In part it depends in how you advertise the dog for sale. If you advertise the animal for sale as a pet only you have control. If not you lose some control over the situation and yes, I would say the law is on the side of the buyer. How animal cruelty laws might come into play might alter the outcome.

But it's hard to say that someone who wishes to buy a wedding cake or wedding flowers to celebrate a wedding is asking to use the cake for a purpose not intended. I suppose if they wished to buy a wedding cake for a birthday celebration the baker could object.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey, the clues is wedding....see I get asked to attend a friend's wedding and they are homosexuals I have a clue. I say no, but thank you

I get asked to make a cake for a wedding I have a clue, I say no but thank you

Now, when asked to go out with my homosexual friends, where, and if I like to I say yes

Unknown people ask for I cake I would ask it it is for a special occasion. I would ask what do you have in mind for it to see if I can help you.

If it's something I can't do.......say Angel food..I would say sorry I am not able to.
If they say white cake in pink fontane, with two brides I would say, sorry I am not able to.


Leave it at that.. if pushed....it's beyond my skill set.


(Could be I suck at making angle food cake....or my skill set with my faith limits me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> That is simple. You don't Have the right to ask.


So not only do you want to limit the religious rights of a seller but his right to free speech as well. Anything other rights you think a sell should give up?

I have the right to ask anything I wish, I do not have the right to force you to answer. See no one has to 'provide' me with asking but someone does have to provide me with an answer. As stated you have no right to anything someone else must provide for you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wlover said:


> That is simple. You don't.have the right to force the customer to tell you what they will do with it.


That's correct. And if I ask and they don't answer I have the right to refuse to exchange my private property for their private property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe I could ask him if he belongs to one if the golf clubs. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html. With certain limitations a private club can set any membership rules it wishes. Augusta National didn't invite Condoleeza Rice to join because the law required them to but because public pressure did.


Please note your very own words: "With certain limitations" That means the government has the power to force you to associate with people you do not wish to associate. Which is, in my opinion, a violation of a person's rights. 

No one's rights are violated when they are not allowed to get something from a private citizen or even a group of private citizens. Again NO ONE has a right to anything which someone else must provide.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I tend to think that if the world were made up only of people like you and me this discussion wouldn't be necessary.


Maybe but the fact is there are people out there who believe differently and like it or not they have the right to do so. Its WRONG to use the force of law to take a right from someone just because you (general you) don't like them exercising that right.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> In part it depends in how you advertise the dog for sale. If you advertise the animal for sale as a pet only you have control. If not you lose some control over the situation and yes, I would say the law is on the side of the buyer. How animal cruelty laws might come into play might alter the outcome.
> 
> But it's hard to say that someone who wishes to buy a wedding cake or wedding flowers to celebrate a wedding is asking to use the cake for a purpose not intended. I suppose if they wished to buy a wedding cake for a birthday celebration the baker could object.


The point is in a sales transaction until ownership of the property is transferred, partly or totally, the property is the private property of the seller. That means the owner has complete and total control over it and has the full right to sell it to or not sell it to anyone he wishes for any reason.

Before we go on I must ask if you accept the fact that you have no right, as in constitutional right, to something which must be provided to you by someone else?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Please note your very own words: "With certain limitations" That means the government has the power to force you to associate with people you do not wish to associate. Which is, in my opinion, a violation of a person's rights.
> 
> No one's rights are violated when they are not allowed to get something from a private citizen or even a group of private citizens. Again NO ONE has a right to anything which someone else must provide.


The laws force no association with anyone. They deal with tax breaks and charitable status. Don't wish to associate or do business with anyone, don't. The law provides for it. Promise service and expect it to be requested. The law also provides for that. Want things both ways, too bad.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Having the ability to provide a services is not a promise to provide a service..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The laws force no association with anyone. They deal with tax breaks and charitable status. Don't wish to associate or do business with anyone, don't. The law provides for it. Promise service and expect it to be requested. The law also provides for that. Want things both ways, too bad.


Golf clubs are considered charities? When did this happen?

I only want it one way. I want people's rights, ALL of their rights respected.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Golf clubs are considered charities? When did this happen?
> 
> I only want it one way. I want people's rights, ALL of their rights respected.


Golf clubs are just one manifestation. Any group can organize the same way and discriminate at will.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

After reading 183 posts, I think I may have a handle on the problem.

Religious people don't want to participate in an activity that would endanger their immortal souls, while liberals/atheists (redundant?) don't believe in souls and think the have the right to force them to commit what they consider a sin, because they're not enlightened like the atheists. And of course, feeling good about themselves while they're doing it. A truly twisted outlook for people who consider themselves "caring".

I find it ironic that atheists find humor in their derisive comments about "fairies in the sky" and such, while religious people pray for them. Be honest, which would you respect?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Golf clubs are just one manifestation. Any group can organize the same way and discriminate at will.


I'd have to see a lot of proof before I believe that you can form any organization and forbid entry to a protected group.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'd have to see a lot of proof before I believe that you can form any organization and forbid entry to a protected group.


I posted proof of golf clubs which forbid membership to women. One of which doesn't even allow women into to the parking lot to drop off a husband or son. The Knights of Columbus practice religous discrimination. Only Catholics may join. Only men are granted full membership. Examples abound. 

Now I'll answer once and for all your question. No one has the the right to anything provided by another if force is involved. But everyone does have the right to purchase that which is freely offered for sale. No one forces a bakery to sell wedding cakes or a florist to sell wedding flowers. To do so would be wrong. But as long as they sell flowers or cakes for weddings they are obligated by the law to sell to all who meet their conditions and must apply those conditions fairly. Want to sell flowers only for religous weddings. Fine. But some religions marry gays. You have to sell to them. Want to sell only for Christian ceremonies. Fine but some Christian denominations consecrate gay marriages. You must sell to them. Make your limits as restrictive as you wish but then be expected to follow them.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> After reading 183 posts, I think I may have a handle on the problem.
> 
> Religious people don't want to participate in an activity that would endanger their immortal souls, while liberals/atheists (redundant?) don't believe in souls and think the have the right to force them to commit what they consider a sin, because they're not enlightened like the atheists. And of course, feeling good about themselves while they're doing it. A truly twisted outlook for people who consider themselves "caring".
> 
> I find it ironic that atheists find humor in their derisive comments about "fairies in the sky" and such, while religious people pray for them. Be honest, which would you respect?


Brilliant.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Ozarks Tom said:


> After reading 183 posts, I think I may have a handle on the problem.
> 
> Religious people don't want to participate in an activity that would endanger their immortal souls, while liberals/atheists (redundant?) don't believe in souls and think the have the right to force them to commit what they consider a sin, because they're not enlightened like the atheists. And of course, feeling good about themselves while they're doing it. A truly twisted outlook for people who consider themselves "caring".
> 
> I find it ironic that atheists find humor in their derisive comments about "fairies in the sky" and such, while religious people pray for them. Be honest, which would you respect?


Perhaps you should read all the posts again. This time try it with an open mind. Just a suggestion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'd have to see a lot of proof before I believe that you can form any organization and forbid entry to a protected group.


Hers some more proof. It quotes lawyers. Good enough?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'd have to see a lot of proof before I believe that you can form any organization and forbid entry to a protected group.


This one's longer and a bit more scholarly. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...&pmnc=410#search="private clubs discriminate". Satisfied yet?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

joseph97297 said:


> perhaps the atheist are protesting the real g-d, you know the spaghetti one.


hey!!!!!!!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Nope I'm talking about requiring someone to do what they do regardless of who is standing in front of them. There is no requirement for anyone to sell flowers. There is no requirement for anyone to provide flowers for a wedding. *There is a requirement in DC that if one is going to open a business that does both of these things they must provide those services regardless of the sexuality or religion of those standing in front of them. *


Then I guess the LGBT community needs to start targeting Muslims and Jews, too, huh? The question must be asked; why are they ONLY targeting Christian businesses? To not target ALL religions for refusing to serve gays is, in fact, religious persecution......and is ILLEGAL.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4#t=48[/ame]


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It is hard to have a value of defending a minority against a majority to prove the courage of your convictions and having that minority have more in common with the majority than with you. It inevitably results in a paradox and the only way out of it is to ignore the paradox.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Then I guess the LGBT community needs to start targeting Muslims and Jews, too, huh? The question must be asked; why are they ONLY targeting Christian businesses?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4#t=48


Amusing but flawed in oh so many ways. I'll start with the term "targeting". In none of the cases I've seen or discussed did I see evidence that a business was targeted or singled out. In all of the cases the people trying to buy something all appeared to have had a prior commercial relationship with the business in question. A relationship where their sexuality didn't prevent the business from exchanging goods for money. A relationship they had no expectation would change, until it did.

Second, the laws in Michigan don't extend antidiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation. I can find no evidence that Dearborn has a local ordinance doing so either, a condition that was present in the other cases. While I wish it were different, no laws were broken.

Third, even after using Kanye to explain the difference he uses the same thing he said wasn't discrimination to try to prove discrimination. In no case did he walk in and ask for a wedding cake out of the catalogs the bakers were holding. In every case special demands were made. The bakers refused those demands which is their right. They didn't seem to say they wouldn't sell a cake because the couple was gay, which is what the Colorado baker did. The DC florist also refused before any talk of design.

You'll note there was mention of bakeries who had no issue with the request but they weren't shown. I'm sure there are bakeries and florists run by Christians who handle gay weddings. They don't make the news either.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wedding cake are each specific for a certain wedding after all


How many want a Bubba and Trixie forever cake.
The booklet is a sampling of prior work that a person is proud of to give an example of his work and skills.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thought the cake maker had a working relationship on prior sales
Had they ....the buyer .....prior.... requested a customized wedding cake with a homosexual theme.

If not you are comparing Apple's to oranges.

I have a friend I would hire to build a shed...but he would refuse to build my house.
He has the talent.....so is he wrong ...no he just likes to do certain projects.

Lawyers often meet with people and after the meet they may refuse the case...They do not turn in their business license... They just do not want that case and it might be that the case is fine....but they do not trust or like the potential clients..

Learning to deal with rejection as a child us easier than reaching adulthood and facing it for the first time.

I feel that society as a whole has been coddled to death


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The laws force no association with anyone. They deal with tax breaks and charitable status. Don't wish to associate or do business with anyone, don't. The law provides for it. Promise service and expect it to be requested. The law also provides for that. Want things both ways, too bad.





kasilofhome said:


> Thought the cake maker had a working relationship on prior sales
> Had they ....the buyer .....prior.... requested a customized wedding cake with a homosexual theme.
> 
> If not you are comparing Apple's to oranges.
> ...


Where did it report that they ordered a wedding cake with a homosexual theme? I was under the impression that it was an ordinary wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. Very different! The cake they wanted was no different then any other cake that had been ordered in itself.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Thought the cake maker had a working relationship on prior sales
> Had they ....the buyer .....prior.... requested a customized wedding cake with a homosexual theme.
> 
> If not you are comparing Apple's to oranges.
> ...


For the final time. In neither the bakery or the floral shop was design discussed. Had it been the discussion would be different . In both cases the request for purchase was denied for only one reason. Because the purchasers were gay. What makes one white buttercream iced cake with pink roses different from another? What makes on bouquet if yellow roses gay and one straight? Nothing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The wedding cake for a homosexual wedding would not be the exact theme as a heterosexual wedding cake.

Any more than a birthday cake Is the same as a graduation cake.

The themes change.

When one orders a cake for a child .....it is common to ask the age of the child
1 to 99
They are asking to work.on the style and design..

Once homosexual wedding cake came into play..game over.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> The wedding cake for a homosexual wedding would not be the exact theme as a heterosexual wedding cake.
> 
> Any more than a birthday cake Is the same as a graduation cake.
> 
> ...


Wedding cakes very seldom have words on them and very often no longer have a wedding couple on the top. It is a decorated cake and could be suitable for any wedding.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Would that just be what your experience is and might mine be different.
Do local customs vary.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> For the final time. In neither the bakery or the floral shop was design discussed. Had it been the discussion would be different . In both cases the request for purchase was denied for only one reason. Because the purchasers were gay. What makes one white buttercream iced cake with pink roses different from another? What makes on bouquet if yellow roses gay and one straight? Nothing.


You are still missing the major (only?) point. There were no rights violated and there could be no rights violated because there is no right to be able to buy flowers or cakes or anything else.

Can you make a case that you, as an individual, has a right to someone else's private property?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You are still missing the major (only?) point. There were no rights violated and there could be no rights violated because there is no right to be able to buy flowers or cakes or anything else.
> 
> Can you make a case that you, as an individual, has a right to someone else's private property?


Sure. Eminent domain. Here's a recent case that upholds the governments right to transfer private property from one individual to another. It's the same law that will allow private pipelines to be built the land of those who oppose pipelines. 

As I've explained before, these cases don't even have to meet that standard. No force us being used. The flower shop freely offers flowers for sale. The couple could meet the price of those flowers. What's the problem? The bakery freely and openly offers wedding cakes for sale. The couple could, we presume, pay the price for said cake. What's the problem? Government has a compelling interest in seeing all its citizens being treated equally. Sell cakes or don't sell cakes and the government doesn't care. Agree to sell cakes and you agree to sell to all.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Would that just be what your experience is and might mine be different.
> Do local customs vary.


Here are some wedding cake designs from on of the major suppliers of cake decorating supplies in the country. http://www.wilton.com/wedding/. Want to tell me which designs are gay and which are straight?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Nope I'm talking about requiring someone to do what they do regardless of who is standing in front of them. There is no requirement for anyone to sell flowers. There is no requirement for anyone to provide flowers for a wedding. * There is a requirement in DC that if one is going to open a business that does both of these things they must provide those services regardless of the sexuality or religion of those standing in front of them. *





mmoetc said:


> Amusing but flawed in oh so many ways. I'll start with the term "targeting". In none of the cases I've seen or discussed did I see evidence that a business was targeted or singled out. In all of the cases the people trying to buy something all appeared to have had a prior commercial relationship with the business in question. A relationship where their sexuality didn't prevent the business from exchanging goods for money. A relationship they had no expectation would change, until it did.
> 
> Second, *the laws in Michiga*n don't extend antidiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation. I can find no evidence that Dearborn has a local ordinance doing so either, a condition that was present in the other cases. While I wish it were different, no laws were broken.


But in your earlier post, you were referring to _federal_ law, no?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> But in your earlier post, you were referring to _federal_ law, no?


No, federal law doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, but it does back up state or local laws that do recognize them as constitutional


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Sure. Eminent domain. Here's a recent case that upholds the governments right to transfer private property from one individual to another. It's the same law that will allow private pipelines to be built the land of those who oppose pipelines.


If you stretch a lot you might be able to look at it this way but seeing as how only the government, not an individual, can use eminent domain. So let me stretch as well. That means the government takes an individual's property. Then the government gives that government property to another individual. 




mmoetc said:


> As I've explained before, these cases don't even have to meet that standard. No force us being used.


Ok, a large man comes up to you and "asks" you to give him $10. He never shows a weapon, he never tells you something bad will happen if you don't give him the money but you know he is not a nice guy. Are you going to not give him the $10? After all no force is being used on you.




mmoetc said:


> The flower shop freely offers flowers for sale. The couple could meet the price of those flowers. What's the problem? The bakery freely and openly offers wedding cakes for sale. The couple could, we presume, pay the price for said cake. What's the problem?


The problem is until the flowers or cake is sold its the store owners PRIVATE PROPERTY. Its up to him to sell it or not to any one he wishes for any reason not some government official.




mmoetc said:


> Government has a compelling interest in seeing all its citizens being treated equally.


Really? Now that's a very scary reason to be taking rights away from people. Also, please telling me how using the threat of force (arrest, fines, etc.) to force a private citizen to sell their PRIVATE PROPERTY to another private citizen makes thing equal? Seems to me the buyer in a system which allows the government to do that is "more equal" than the seller.




mmoetc said:


> Sell cakes or don't sell cakes and the government doesn't care.


Sure seems to me it does. If you don't sell to the people it demands you do you stand a good chance of facing a government official which has the power to take your property (via fines) and your freedom (via jail time).




mmoetc said:


> Agree to sell cakes and you agree to sell to all.


Ok, you want to take personal property rights away business owners. Any other rights you think they should lose? How about their 5th amendment right? After all doesn't the government have "a compelling interest" to see that its citizens receive justice if they are victims of a crime? Therefore if they are accused of a crime in their business why should they have the right to not answer questions about it? 

Don't like it? Then just don't open a business and you won't have to give those rights up.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

It's all good, God luves ya


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Here are some wedding cake designs from on of the major suppliers of cake decorating supplies in the country. http://www.wilton.com/wedding/. Want to tell me which designs are gay and which are straight?


A national distributor would lean to a neutral formats to avoid boycott from a perceived political lean.

So, that is a bias source as local vs national where I questioned local preference influence.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Here are some wedding cake designs from on of the major suppliers of cake decorating supplies in the country. http://www.wilton.com/wedding/. Want to tell me which designs are gay and which are straight?


The point is its not the cake or the cake design but the fact that the person looking to buy their private property is planning on using said private property in a way the owner of that property doesn't want it to be used.

Let us say there is a bakery where the owner believes hunting is a vile past time and hunting over bait should almost be a capital offense. He belongs organizations which are working to ban hunting and gives money to candidates who are antihunting.

One day someone comes in an buys a chocolate cake. They say nothing to the owner about why they want the cake but they use it as bait for a bear hunt (Four bears in New Hampshire may have suffered death by chocolate). There's no problem, well for the baker's sensibility anyway. He didn't know at the time what his cake was going to be used for.

The next week someone comes in to the same place looking to buy a chocolate cake. While looking at the cakes the owner discovers this cake is going to be use as bear bait. Should he be forced to sell them the cake? Why should the owner be forced to be part of something he believes is repugnant?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> If you stretch a lot you might be able to look at it this way but seeing as how only the government, not an individual, can use eminent domain. So let me stretch as well. That means the government takes an individual's property. Then the government gives that government property to another individual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the link I forgot to post earlier. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108 Sorry for the oversight. As you can see this SC ruling allows government to do exactly what you say they can't. Force a sale of private property only to transfer such property to another private entity.

We've argued this in circles long enough for me. We've made our arguements and dug in our heels. You doubted discrimination is legal. I showed you numerous cases were it was legal. I've shown you where government can transfer ownership from one private entity to another. You dismiss equal treatment as being compelling and I think it's the reason the 14th amendment exists. We won't agree, we won't change each other's minds. I'm done.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> The point is its not the cake or the cake design but the fact that the person looking to buy their private property is planning on using said private property in a way the owner of that property doesn't want it to be used.
> 
> Let us say there is a bakery where the owner believes hunting is a vile past time and hunting over bait should almost be a capital offense. He belongs organizations which are working to ban hunting and gives money to candidates who are antihunting.
> 
> ...


Not quite done. You're right, it isn't about the cake's design. I posted this link in part to prove that.

When bear hunters become a protected class they can apply for protections to allow them to buy any cake they wish. Now I'm done.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Do you buy into some are more equal than others....aka protected class acceptance.

As a female to misquote Hillary

What difference does it make

Hire the tallest person to change the light bulbs in the ceiling vs me....somehow ovaries do not assist in getting job done.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Not quite done. You're right, it isn't about the cake's design. I posted this link in part to prove that.
> 
> When bear hunters become a protected class they can apply for protections to allow them to buy any cake they wish. Now I'm done.


One last thing from me. I think its a spitting in the face to every person who has fought for the equality and freedom this nation used to stand for that so many people now accept as fact that in the eyes of the government some people are now a "protected class". Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead. 

We are now living on the Animal Farm where all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. How much longer before we decide that some classes of people should be less protected than others? If the government can say one class is protected what is to stop it from saying another is unprotected? Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead and buried.

You can't say you love or even want freedom while you cheer the government as it takes rights from others because you don't like how "those people" think, act or live. Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead, buried and people are dancing for joy on its grave. :Bawling:

I suggest you and others who think we should have protected classes of people find an older person with a weird looking number tattooed on their arm and ask them what happens when the government starts making laws which treats certain people as better or worse than others.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> Let us look at this with logic and ration.
> 
> Atheist "believe" there is no God.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't sound at all like a religion if you learned what(if anything) atheists believe. Assuming you already know doesn't work.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

watcher said:


> *Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead.
> 
> Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead and buried.
> 
> Doctor King I must tell you that your dream is dead, buried and people are dancing for joy on its grave.* :Bawling:


 Nuf said,,, and "well" said.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

What individual rights do gays athiest or anybody else not have in this country?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> What individual rights do gays athiest or anybody else not have in this country?


There are still states that do not allow gay marriage. There are still states were it's legal to discriminate against LGBT, except in employment. 

After years of strife, protests, etc. other groups of people were given "protected status" and cannot be targeted for discrimination. Gays are still fighting for rights that should have been intrinsic, but they will prevail. 

It's fairly simple: The playing field is a bit less hilly now.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So my church can perform a Union ceremony for a gay couple but not a marriage ceremony. You're close. The government should get totally out of the marriage business. They should allow people to enter into a contract that conveys the same benefits marriage does now. What you or your church wish to call the ceremony codifying it and the following union can be up to you and your religion, or me and mine.


Actually it doesn't bother me a bit what churches want to do. Some of their members do object, it seems. Still, the meaning of the word is changed. CHANGED. Seems many do not see that. Keep saying its not, etc. There actually is a LAW about marriage b/w a man & woman. 
I agree about gov't getting out. But I also see that gov't has to do something about polygamy laws, beastiality, incest. So there's got to be a line...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Doggonedog said:


> There are still states that do not allow gay marriage.


How many states allow gay marriage?



> There are still states were it's legal to discriminate against LGBT, except in employment.


What is a documented example of "discrimination" against LGBT?
What state, what was the discrimination? 



> After years of strife, protests, etc. other groups of people were given "protected status" and cannot be targeted for discrimination


What 'other groups'?



> Gays are still fighting for rights that should have been intrinsic, but they will prevail.
> 
> It's fairly simple: The playing field is a bit less hilly now.


Because I am not LGBT, I do not fully understand, and I am asking the questions I ask, to be educated.
It would be similar if I were fighting for 'women's rights' and a man asked me these same types of questions, because he is a man, not a woman, but wants to understand.

I do hope that someone from the LGBT community can help me understand.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Do you think the Jim Crow laws would have been "better" if they had been called something else?


How is this on topic? We're speaking of marriage b/w a man & woman. The illegal 'crow laws' had nothing to do w/it.
In fact, how is this at all on topic? I thought the thread was about discrimintion of atheists?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> How many states allow gay marriage?
> 
> What is a documented example of "discrimination" against LGBT?
> What state, what was the discrimination?
> ...


It's my opinion that you are being facetious and/or baiting, so I'll respectfully direct you to either the search option here on HomesteadingToday or Google. 

These questions have been answered ad nauseam and most adults should have a decent grasp of the subject.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> How is this on topic? We're speaking of marriage b/w a man & woman. The illegal 'crow laws' had nothing to do w/it.
> In fact, how is this at all on topic? I thought the thread was about discrimintion of atheists?


Why are you dragging up old posts? Are you honing your trolling skills?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I think that for every passionate Atheist there are dozens of passionate Christians that we have to put up with. Athiests are irritable because of Christianity constantly telling us that we are somehow bad and need saving. The whole notion of being born in sin is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard and is used to guilt Christians into feeling they need someone to come along and save them. Then they're told that they are so bad that someone had to die to save them and the guilt piles up. I've heard people say "I fail God every day and yet he still loves me". Athiests are irritable because perfectly good people allow themselves to be told these negative things for no reason.
> 
> We are born innocent. We are good people who make mistakes, learn from them and move on.
> 
> The problem here is that, like many other threads on this subject, we could debate this until the cows come home and we wouldn't get anywhere because both sides are so dug in and won't give an inch.


So, you're saying atheists have a problem w/what Christians SAY? The 1st amendment guarantees that Christians can SAY what they want. Atheists do NOT have the right of freedom FROM religion. That simple. 

Gays have every right to be served in any establishment. When it goes to that establishment providing something for them that is against their religion, the gays have NO RIGHT to demand it. It is so simple. The biz is NOT forcing its religion on anyone. Its NOT making the gays stop being gay!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Doggonedog said:


> It's my opinion that you are being facetious and/or baiting, so I'll respectfully direct you to either the search option here on HomesteadingToday or Google.
> 
> These questions have been answered ad nauseam and most adults should have a decent grasp of the subject.


Your opinion is incorrect.

My stylist is gay. I have had some VERY frank discussions with him.
I have NEVER heard him complain about being discriminated against.....and trust me, he would say.
He's not a 'queen' (his words, not mine) and has no patience or interest in those types; he's just a gay man, that's it.

I am very much an adult.
And I am very teachable.
I thought maybe if someone from the GLBT community would provide simple answers to simple questions, then I could have a better understanding.

Hopefully, someone from the GLBT community will see this post, and help me out, either right here in front of everyone, or via PM.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Exactly. I seem to be bringing up Jim Crow laws a lot today but does anyone think they were a good thing? Just replace gay with black... we already decided that everyone can eat at the lunch counter.


Where do you get the idea these are the same?
I think its a slap in the face of every black American. Every one. 

NO ONE is advocating not serving gays. 
(I thought we were on atheists?)

Freedom of religion & fact that gov't can make NO LAW concerning religion, is why a biz does not have to participate in a ceremony to unite a gay couple. IF they come into your biz for a meal, a loaf of bread, you are obligated to serve. Everyone can eat at the lunch counter.

Why do some insist on stirring the pot? How many times should the same thing have to be explained?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> My stylist is gay. I have had some VERY frank discussions with him.
> I have NEVER heard him complain about being discriminated against.....and trust me, he would say.
> ...


Ah, I was right. You were baiting.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Where do you get the idea these are the same?
> I think its a slap in the face of every black American. Every one.
> 
> NO ONE is advocating not serving gays.
> ...


Troll troll troll your boat gently down the thread...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Can't force someone to offer something they don't already offer. The cake bake bakes cakes already. They don't get to decide what the customer used the cake for.


If its a WEDDING CAKE, then its already a given. Gah. They can provide any cake, just cannot be forced to participate in the gay wedding. 
Like the muslim bakery. Provides wedding cakes all day. But they will not provide to gays. ANY cake! They should be shut down! And prosecuted!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> But why does your faith get to determine the laws and reality of this Nation?
> 
> I agree that if the need for a license was to be removed all issues would be solved, but that is never going to be the case. Perhaps if the people speaking out on the marriage issue were trying to get the gov''t out of the marriage business I would buy that they don't want to push their faith on other.
> 
> ...


Again, its the 1st amendment. Congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion or the free exercise thereof.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> That is simple. You don't Have the right to ask.


Whoa! Don't believe you said that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> After reading 183 posts, I think I may have a handle on the problem.
> 
> Religious people don't want to participate in an activity that would endanger their immortal souls, while liberals/atheists (redundant?) don't believe in souls and think the have the right to force them to commit what they consider a sin, because they're not enlightened like the atheists. And of course, feeling good about themselves while they're doing it. A truly twisted outlook for people who consider themselves "caring".
> 
> I find it ironic that atheists find humor in their derisive comments about "fairies in the sky" and such, while religious people pray for them. Be honest, which would you respect?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> So, you're saying atheists have a problem w/what Christians SAY? The 1st amendment guarantees that Christians can SAY what they want. Atheists do NOT have the right of freedom FROM religion. That simple.
> 
> Gays have every right to be served in any establishment. When it goes to that establishment providing something for them that is against their religion, the gays have NO RIGHT to demand it. It is so simple. The biz is NOT forcing its religion on anyone. Its NOT making the gays stop being gay!


The 1st amendment would also guarantee atheists the right to speak their opinion back to Christians, would it not? Christians (or anyone) do not have the right to freedom FROM criticism. We all support people's right to live their lives any way they like but when we see so many people causing harm to themselves and others because they are following the archaic teachings of a fable from long ago we feel the need to speak up. We love and care deeply for these people and it pains us to see them being hurt for no reason.

The definition of marriage can always change with time. Even your Constitution can change as it has many times. They're called Amendments. With the right political or social will anything can change.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> My stylist is gay. I have had some VERY frank discussions with him.
> I have NEVER heard him complain about being discriminated against.....and trust me, he would say.
> ...


Not to discredit your experience with your stylist but conversations about controversial subjects with those who you are paying for a service and who are relying on you for their income often come with some self censorship.

The most obvious form of discrimination can come in hiring. I have a job opening that requires a person to sit alone in a room with a rolling line in front of them. Every minute a box will enter from a hole in the wall to their right. They must rotate this one pound box 180 degrees and send it through the hole in the wall to their left. No great physical strength is required nor is interaction between them and the other employees. For this you will make $100,000 per year with great benefits. You come in to interview. You are obviously female but since nothing about the job is gender specific I can't factor that in to my hiring decision. You're black. Again, not a consideration I can use. Your wearing a large cross. Nope, still can't factor it in, can't really even ask about it. You volunteer (I can't ask) that you're 45 years old. Not information I can use. 
I can, without recourse from federal law, ask if you're gay or straight and make my decision soley based on that. Sorry ma'am, you like men. I can't hire you.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

People with a same sex attraction can go today in all 50 states and get a marriage license and marry. Just like everyone else. So no rights taken. They just cant do it based soley on a sexual attraction to the same sex. So no marriage rights are violated as they as individuals do have the right to marry. Most are not discrimated against in most places. But guess what. Every single person in America is discriminated against everyday. Many people do not get jobs everyday because they aren't smart enough pretty enough, dark enough, light enough or a host of many other reasons. They just aren't told to their face. So it will always be alive and well. Making special laws pertaining to one group because of a sexual desire is nothing short of discrimination against the opposers of said law.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Not to discredit your experience with your stylist but conversations about controversial subjects with those who you are paying for a service and who are relying on you for their income often come with some self censorship.


Thank you.
My boy had no filter!! Trust me.....(been seeing him for over 10 years).
One example.
He's tired of going out to 'straight' places with his straight friends.
None of them will go to a gay bar w/ him.
I told him we could grab an Uber and head downtown, and I'd go with him; he'd just have to prep me on 'how to act' because have never been in a gay bar! 
He said "Giiiiiiirl........I will prep you for sure!!".
He's not offended that I asked to be "prepped".....it's all new to me, and I do not want to embarrass him.
I love him. I really do. He is my age, so he's not some kid in his 20's.
He is more than my stylist, he is my friend.



> The most obvious form of discrimination can come in hiring. I have a job opening that requires a person to sit alone in a room with a rolling line in front of them. Every minute a box will enter from a hole in the wall to their right. They must rotate this one pound box 180 degrees and send it through the hole in the wall to their left. No great physical strength is required nor is interaction between them and the other employees. For this you will make $100,000 per year with great benefits. You come in to interview. You are obviously female but since nothing about the job is gender specific I can't factor that in to my hiring decision. You're black. Again, not a consideration I can use. Your wearing a large cross. Nope, still can't factor it in, can't really even ask about it. You volunteer (I can't ask) that you're 45 years old. Not information I can use.
> I can, without recourse from federal law, ask if you're gay or straight and make my decision soley based on that. Sorry ma'am, you like men. I can't hire you.


Is it like that in every state?

Because in Indiana, you cannot ask age, race, religion, orientation....nothing.
If I call your last employer, I cannot ask any details, only "did Johnny work at your place from date A to date B".


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"People with a same sex attraction can go today in all 50 states and get a marriage license and marry. Just like everyone else."
No, it's not "just like everyone else". If they can only marry somebody YOU believe they should marry, it's not just like everyone else. 
When one group is denied rights available to another group, it isn't "just like everyone else", at least not here on Earth.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Thank you.
> My boy had no filter!! Trust me.....(been seeing him for over 10 years).
> One example.
> He's tired of going out to 'straight' places with his straight friends.
> ...


My example mirrored Federal law. You can go to the site of whatever state agency controls such things in Indiana and find your answer. Orientation differs from sex. One is usually more obvious than the other. Even under Federal law you can ask any question you want about any of these things. What you can't do us use the answers in your hiring decision. Hence, most companies have a policy against even asking to avoid any hint of impropriety. I've seen first hand and heard of a few other methods where many nonallowed things were indicated on application paperwork by strategically placed checks, dots, doodles and even folds. If one really wants to discriminate one will.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I think all avenues of this discussion have been covered.


----------

