Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Fighting Back!
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by phank View PostYou were comparing anti-discrimination laws directly with affirmative action laws.
I personally had to change careers when I graduated right into the teeth of the affirmative action quota system. But I wasn't turned down for every job out of bigotry - those who interviewed me wanted to hire me, but they had legal quotas.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostWhy, by golly, the Giffords offered "separate but equal" accommodations, and that should have been plenty good enough. No, this couple was not accorded the same treatment as others, as required by law, but the Giffords' faith obliges them to be bigots, and therefore we are all required to favor them and not their victims. We are expected to RESPECT bigotry, because they wave bibles around and claim Jesus WANTS them to be bigots. It must say that somewhere in the bible...doesn't it?
Up until now, we've had a nice and polite discussion. But now you feel the need to wade in here with your disrespectful attitude and mock others for their personal beliefs. Congratulations on acting like a 5-year old. I probably shouldn't dignify your post with a response, but I'll be brief.
I didn't say anything about 'separate but equal'. You entirely missed the point I was making. And since you don't seem to have the slightest idea about how I view this situation, perhaps I should clarify. Ultimately, I don't care what the law says -- if the law compels Christians to commit sin or support sin, then that law is morally wrong. Period.
This is why I mentioned earlier that I didn't want to repeat the debates that have already happened here. Because I'm not trying to argue from the standpoint of the law (in this thread). I'm talking about right vs. wrong.
If you want to have a polite discussion, phank, I'll be happy to continue with this. But if you want to continue acting as you have so far, then I'll also be happy to ignore you."If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostFrom the link you provided:
Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated.
Do you REALLY think Obama, Holder, or their ilk would say that a Church could NOT fall within those guidelines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...se_of_religion
This is what's happening in the Gifford example.
Originally posted by myth View PostI think it's very telling that you do not believe in freedom of speech. Thanks for being up-front about it.Last edited by Tassman; 10-08-2014, 02:21 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostYou were comparing anti-discrimination laws directly with affirmative action laws. I personally had to change careers when I graduated right into the teeth of the affirmative action quota system. But I wasn't turned down for every job out of bigotry - those who interviewed me wanted to hire me, but they had legal quotas. No law required the Giffords to perform x% of same-sex marriages. Only to provide the same services to all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostLet me guess.... You'd also be against anti-abortion protests (the peaceful, non-disruptive ones) too?
How 'odd' that all the opinions you think should not be allowed to be expressed in public places are the ones that don't coincide with your political views and pet 'social justice' hobbyhorses.
The issue is one of equal civil rights, and their implementation, for all citizens; no more no less.
Also - you do realise that leading figures in the suffrage movement were motivated by their Christian principles; and MLK was 'ahem' - a Christian? Yeah, let's keep those bigoted Christians quiet in public...
Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View PostThen they would also be compelled to host a KKK event.Last edited by Tassman; 10-08-2014, 03:01 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOff topic!
The issue is one of equal civil rights, and their implementation, for all citizens; no more no less.
Also - you do realize that the suffragette movement, equal civil rights for homosexuals and blacks have all been opposed by Christians citing biblical texts to make their point. And that the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant body in the US) was founded primarily in opposition to the abolition of slavery? So "yeah, let's keep those bigoted Christians quiet in public..." if that's the best they can do.
No! The Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits discrimination against segments of the population and discrimination is precisely what the KKK is known for. It is its very raison d'être in fact.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View PostThen Phank was wrong about them having to provide the same services for all.Last edited by Tassman; 10-08-2014, 05:39 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostFreedom of speech is a right but one cannot hold any personal beliefs, including the professed doctrines of religious belief, superior to the law of the land. See above: "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”"If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View PostCan and do. That's the whole point. While you believe the law of the land is the ultimate authority, many of us do not.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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes, I really do think that. This is a fallacious slippery-slope argument and militates against the US Constitution as practised:The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOff topic!
Originally posted by TassmanThe issue is one of equal civil rights, and their implementation, for all citizens; no more no less.
Yes, you've already made it quite clear you're not in favour of equal rights.
Originally posted by TassmanAlso - you do realize that the suffragette movement, equal civil rights for homosexuals and blacks have all been opposed by Christians citing biblical texts to make their point. And that the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant body in the US) was founded primarily in opposition to the abolition of slavery? So "yeah, let's keep those bigoted Christians quiet in public..." if that's the best they can do.
So MLK should have kept his Christian mouth shut, then, and not brought his religious views into the public square. Ditto William Wilberforce and the Clapham group; Harriet Tubman (slavery), Kate Sheppherd (women's suffrage, NZ) and many, many more, too numerous to mention, down to organisations like Sojourners and Rahab Ministries (helping Thai prostitutes find positive alternative ways to financially support themselves and get out of the sex trade). You clearly think all these people - and many more through history - should have just shut up and not inflicted their religious claptrap on society, as they campaigned for freedoms for women and children; established orphanages; built and ran hospitals; fed and clothed the destitute; organised help for addicts and victims; provided education for many who would not have had it.
Yep, society would be better off if only rational atheists like Richard 'Child sex abuse is not that bad' Dawkins and Tassman 'shut up you Christians - but I believe in equal rights for all' controlled our social agenda.
It's interesting to note that the people that truly believe in equality and free expression are the ones who built societies where it is even possible for groups they disagree with - like gay activists - to publicly campaign and push for social change, and succeed at it. And those activists, and their ilk, are the ones who want everyone who disagrees with them to be forcibly kept quiet, to have the law force their compliance with and assent to, the activist's view of the world. The ones who believe in freedom of speech and belief are willing to live and let live, willing to allow others to hold and publicly express differing opinions, willing to agree on social change where they see there has been real injustice, willing to fight for a society where such change is even possible, willing to spend their lives working for change, and helping the weakest and the poorest. Those are the people Tassman wants to shut up, by force of law if need be. Equal rights and freedom of speech for everyone who agrees with Tassman!!...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostIt's interesting to note that the people that truly believe in equality and free expression are the ones who built societies where it is even possible for groups they disagree with - like gay activists - to publicly campaign and push for social change, and succeed at it. And those activists, and their ilk, are the ones who want everyone who disagrees with them to be forcibly kept quiet, to have the law force their compliance with and assent to, the activist's view of the world.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
-
Originally posted by myth View PostCrazy stuff is already happening. So, it’s legal to stand in the street and make one statement. But to any man who stands on the same street and expresses his opinion that the opposite is true….well, don’t be surprised if you’re arrested. Freedom of speech and religion are alive and well in the UK, I see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-is-a-sin.html
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...ity-a-sin.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostIt's interesting to note that the people that truly believe in equality and free expression are the ones who built societies where it is even possible for groups they disagree with - like gay activists - to publicly campaign and push for social change, and succeed at it. And those activists, and their ilk, are the ones who want everyone who disagrees with them to be forcibly kept quiet, to have the law force their compliance with and assent to, the activist's view of the world. The ones who believe in freedom of speech and belief are willing to live and let live, willing to allow others to hold and publicly express differing opinions, willing to agree on social change where they see there has been real injustice, willing to fight for a society where such change is even possible, willing to spend their lives working for change, and helping the weakest and the poorest. Those are the people Tassman wants to shut up, by force of law if need be. Equal rights and freedom of speech for everyone who agrees with Tassman!!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
351 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
388 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 12:45 PM |
Comment