Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More Fascism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Fascism

    They just can let others live in peace:

    NEW YORK (RNS) Christian farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a wedding ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each.

    Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who own Liberty Ridge Farm near Albany, rent their facilities for birthday parties and about a dozen weddings each year.

    When Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a same-sex couple from Newark, N.J., requested to use the facility for their 2012 wedding, Cynthia Gifford offered the farm for a reception, but not for the wedding ceremony. Weddings typically are conducted on the first floor of the Giffords’ home or in an adjacent field.
    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/...sbian-wedding/
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Here we go again.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      They just can let others live in peace:



      http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/...sbian-wedding/


      "I know you believe those farmers are discriminating against you on the basis of your sexual orientation and are therefore violating your rights, but dammit, why can't you just let them live in peace?"

      Because those farmers evidently won't let them live in peace, that's why.
      Last edited by fm93; 08-21-2014, 04:51 PM.
      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by square_peg View Post


        "I know you believe those farmers are discriminating against you on the basis of your sexual orientation and are therefore violating your rights, but dammit, why can't you just let them live in peace?"

        Because those farmers evidently won't let them live in peace, that's why.
        Bull SP this is a case of someone deciding that they are going to force others to do what they want them to do or else you won't be allowed to live in peace.

        SP this couple was not stopped from going somewhere else to have their ceremony the farmers were not going to stop them from having one. in fact they were wiling to let them have the reception there. But the bullying couple couldn't stand to let the farmers live in peace they had to like the bullies they showed themselves to be the ones say "you do what we want you to do or else we will not allow you to live in peace even though you did us no TRUE HARM. that couple and thier ilk are saying "we are making an example of you to prove no one has the right to do anything but what we want them to do." the TRUE MARK OF A BULLY.

        instead of saying yes to bullies and thier lies SP I wish you would Say NO to bullies of any ilk. It is not the farmers not letting someone live in peace it is that bullying couple and their ilk who refuse to.

        stop listening and repeating the lies of the bullies
        Last edited by RumTumTugger; 08-21-2014, 07:08 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post


          "I know you believe those farmers are discriminating against you on the basis of your sexual orientation and are therefore violating your rights, but dammit, why can't you just let them live in peace?"

          Because those farmers evidently won't let them live in peace, that's why.
          Yeah the farmers won't let them live in peace by not letting them commit blasphemy in their living room.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by square_peg View Post


            "I know you believe those farmers are discriminating against you on the basis of your sexual orientation and are therefore violating your rights, but dammit, why can't you just let them live in peace?"

            Because those farmers evidently won't let them live in peace, that's why.
            Are you mental?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
              Bull SP this is a case of someone deciding that they are going to force others to do what they want them to do or else you won't be allowed to live in peace.

              SP this couple was not stopped from going somewhere else to have their ceremony the farmers were not going to stop them from having one. in fact they were wiling to let them have the reception there. But the bullying couple couldn't stand to let the farmers live in peace they had to like the bullies they showed themselves to be the ones say "you do what we want you to do or else we will not allow you to live in peace even though you did us no TRUE HARM. that couple and thier ilk are saying "we are making an example of you to prove no one has the right to do anything but what we want them to do." the TRUE MARK OF A BULLY.

              instead of saying yes to bullies and thier lies SP I wish you would Say NO to bullies of any ilk. It is not the farmers not letting someone live in peace it is that bullying couple and their ilk who refuse to.

              stop listening and repeating the lies of the bullies
              Suppose that a black couple in the 1960s wanted to marry, so they asked some white farmers who operated a business of wedding services if they could rent out the facilities for their wedding. The farmers, who never had an issue with renting out the facilities for white people to have weddings, refused. Believing this to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, the black couple sued the farmers. How well would the following statement from the farmers' hypothetical lawyer work as an excuse?

              "This couple was not stopped from going somewhere else to have their ceremony! The farmers were not going to stop them from having one. In fact they were wiling to let them have the reception there. But the bullying black couple couldn't stand to let the farmers live in peace they had to like the bullies they showed themselves to be the ones say "you do what we want you to do or else we will not allow you to live in peace even though you did us no TRUE HARM. that couple and thier ilk are saying "we are making an example of you to prove no one has the right to do anything but what we want them to do." the TRUE MARK OF A BULLY. It is not the farmers not letting someone live in peace it is that bullying black couple and their ilk who refuse to."

              That would get the lawyer laughed out of court instantly. Yes, the black couple technically could've gone somewhere else for a wedding. But they were understandably angry due to the blatant discrimination and violation of their rights, and they were justified in suing the farmers, who shouldn't have been allowed to get away with discrimination. It's silly to call the black couple "bullies." Likewise with the same-sex couple. As the article explained, the farm facilities count as public rather than private, and the farmers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                As the article explained, the farm facilities count as public rather than private, and the farmers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
                Oh? The farm facilities are owned by the government?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                  Suppose that a black couple in the 1960s wanted to marry, so they asked some white farmers who operated a business of wedding services if they could rent out the facilities for their wedding. The farmers, who never had an issue with renting out the facilities for white people to have weddings, refused. Believing this to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, the black couple sued the farmers. How well would the following statement from the farmers' hypothetical lawyer work as an excuse?

                  "This couple was not stopped from going somewhere else to have their ceremony! The farmers were not going to stop them from having one. In fact they were wiling to let them have the reception there. But the bullying black couple couldn't stand to let the farmers live in peace they had to like the bullies they showed themselves to be the ones say "you do what we want you to do or else we will not allow you to live in peace even though you did us no TRUE HARM. that couple and thier ilk are saying "we are making an example of you to prove no one has the right to do anything but what we want them to do." the TRUE MARK OF A BULLY. It is not the farmers not letting someone live in peace it is that bullying black couple and their ilk who refuse to."

                  That would get the lawyer laughed out of court instantly. Yes, the black couple technically could've gone somewhere else for a wedding. But they were understandably angry due to the blatant discrimination and violation of their rights, and they were justified in suing the farmers, who shouldn't have been allowed to get away with discrimination. It's silly to call the black couple "bullies." Likewise with the same-sex couple. As the article explained, the farm facilities count as public rather than private, and the farmers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
                  Sorry SP you are comparing Apples(skin color an something that cannot be changed because it is a part of the person) with oranges(people behaving in a certain way and wanting others to approve and participate in it against their conscience.) bulling anyone who does not want participate so that behaviour.

                  sorry SP you have it wrong here as do all those who have let the bullies have their way

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Meta Knight View Post
                    Oh? The farm facilities are owned by the government?
                    I guess according to the bullies who refuse to let people like the farmers live in peace think so.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Methinks it would behoove all to ignore square_peg since he clearly does not understand what is actually happening. He is one of the cowardly bullies referred to in the OP.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Meta Knight View Post
                        Oh? The farm facilities are owned by the government?
                        From the article:
                        The decision said Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.”

                        You don't have to agree with that ruling, but for now it is what it is.


                        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                        Sorry SP you are comparing Apples(skin color an something that cannot be changed because it is a part of the person) with oranges(people behaving in a certain way and wanting others to approve and participate in it against their conscience.) bulling anyone who does not want participate so that behaviour.
                        No, you have it wrong. Nothing in the article indicated anything about behavior. Lesbian refers to sexual orientation and simply means that a woman's mind is "wired" in such a way that she experiences feelings of attraction only towards other women instead of men. I don't know for certain if it's absolutely unchangeable, but the scientific evidence is clear that the vast majority of people cannot change their orientation--not by any known methods and certainly not by choice, at least. Your mistake is a common one, but a mistake nevertheless. If a person tells you that he/she is straight, then he/she may be engaging in behavior such as sexual relations, but you don't automatically hear "I'm straight" and think about behavior, do you? Likewise with gay people.

                        Also, your objection about "wanting others to approve and participate in it against their conscience" misses the mark. Technically, the farmers didn't have to personally approve of same-sex marriage. And they certainly didn't have to participate in it, since they weren't being asked to actually officiate the wedding. They were simply asked to rent out the facilities so that the couple could hold the wedding--in other words, provide the same service that they frequently provide for straight couples.

                        So here it is again: two people, both of whom happen to be homosexual, want to marry each other and have the wedding on those facilities. The farmers refused. But when two people, both of whom happen to be heterosexual, want to marry each other and have the wedding on those facilities, the farmers have no problem. The only difference here is the sexual orientation of the couple. Hence, the farmers are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation--a protected characteristic--and thus are violating the couple's rights.
                        Last edited by fm93; 08-22-2014, 08:21 AM.
                        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                          Suppose that a black couple in the 1960s wanted to marry, so they asked some white farmers who operated a business of wedding services if they could rent out the facilities for their wedding. The farmers, who never had an issue with renting out the facilities for white people to have weddings, refused. Believing this to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, the black couple sued the farmers. How well would the following statement from the farmers' hypothetical lawyer work as an excuse?
                          You are comparing an immutable characteristic, skin color, with a chosen immoral behavior. A behavior I might add that was illegal in every state of the union until relatively recently. It is like saying that the farmer would have to, by law, rent out his farm for a nudist event.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            You are comparing an immutable characteristic, skin color, with a chosen immoral behavior.
                            Incorrect. I'm comparing an immutable characteristic (skin color) to another immutable characteristic (sexual orientation). What chosen behavior is the lesbian couple doing in this regard? Are you assuming that they'll later engage in sexual relations? They might, but you don't know that--for all you know, they might be celibate. And even if they do, that's not different from what you'd expect straight people to do after a wedding. The only real difference here is that the people who comprise the accepted couple experience feelings of attraction only towards members of the opposite sex, while the people who comprise the rejected couple experience feelings of attraction only towards members of the same sex. The farmers can't discriminate based on that.

                            People on both sides of the political spectrum need to stop equivocating orientation with behavior (aka to stop hearing "I'm gay" and instantly assume that that means "I'm engaging in same-sex relations").

                            Or, if by "chosen immoral behavior" you were referring to their getting married (as if it was immoral for two deeply-in-love gay people to marry each other)--well, the farmers can personally believe that, but as long as they operate a public business they can't discriminate. That's not fascism. If a public wedding service operator personally believed on the basis of his religion that God intended marriage to be between white people only and that black marriages were immoral, he also wouldn't be allowed to discriminate.
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                              Incorrect. I'm comparing an immutable characteristic (skin color) to another immutable characteristic (sexual orientation).
                              Prove that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 11:56 PM
                              6 responses
                              22 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by mikewhitney, Yesterday, 08:39 PM
                              2 responses
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Darfius, Yesterday, 02:11 PM
                              3 responses
                              56 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 02:06 PM
                              16 responses
                              76 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post LiconaFan97  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-30-2020, 09:13 AM
                              18 responses
                              146 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X