Op Ed Piece By The Florist

[Bill the Cat]

At least, that's what you would hope, because you have no respect for religious liberty.

He has no respect for liberty of any kind that doesn't pander to his liberal pals.

[Darth Executor]

He has no respect for liberty of any kind that doesn't pander to his liberal pals.

Go and do likewise.

[Bill the Cat]

Go and do likewise.

Cryptic as usual Darth?

[mossrose]

What's written on a sign is a "free speech" issue. Americans are obsessed with their "first amendment rights", so you'd never get a law banning hate-speech to stand up in court in the US. (~rolls eyes in the general direction of the US's absurd constitution, and the currently dominant ridiculously excessive interpretation of the first amendment free-speech rights~) I personally support the idea of hate-speech laws, and many countries in Europe have adopted them.

So you would, of course, also be totally against hate-speech directed toward Christians. Good on you!

[Darth Executor]

Cryptic as usual Darth?

There is no reason to respect liberty that doesn't pander to you and your pals. Life would be much better if it was pancreasman or Starlight losing everything instead of the woman in the OP.

[Darth Executor]

So you would, of course, also be totally against hate-speech directed toward Christians. Good on you!

How about hate speech directed at infants, whom Starlight thinks it's ok to kill.

[Starlight]

So, we put a dollar amount on religious freedom these days?

I would say that the phrase "religious freedom" as it is currently being used in the US is garbage that shouldn't be taken seriously, so the dollar amount I would put on it is $0. It is a political ploy being used to defend anti-gay discrimination, just as the phrase "states rights" was a political ploy used to defend segregation. The one deserves to be taken no more seriously than the other. While it is obviously true that constitutionally states do have various rights, the people who talked about 'states rights', were by and large not constitutional scholars who were genuinely interested in discussion of the pros and cons of various interpretations of the constitution, but rather were bigots determined to perpetuate segregation: They were acting in bad faith and using the phrase 'states rights' to pretend they weren't. Likewise today, it is obviously true that religious people are entitled to various freedoms to practice their religions, but similarly I do not believe the people who are currently talking about "religious freedom" are generally acting in good faith - they are hiding anti-gay discrimination behind an extremely thin veneer of pretending to be advocating for general religious freedom.

So, she's using the Church for personal advantage, with no shame.

As it happens, she decided to go with the non-Church option.

[Bill the Cat]

There is no reason to respect liberty that doesn't pander to you and your pals.

Sure there is. I can respect consistent liberty, even when it excludes me. I don't care if they have a "National Pacific Islander Month" as long as they don't bitch about "National European Month". But the leftist hypocrisy is so strong that it stinks.

Life would be much better if it was pancreasman or Starlight losing everything instead of the woman in the OP.

Why? I'd rather they see the error of their ways instead.

[Cow Poke]

I would say that the phrase "religious freedom" as it is currently being used in the US is garbage that shouldn't be taken seriously...

Yes, it's quite obvious that you're not a fan of religious liberty.

It is a political ploy being used to defend anti-gay discrimination, just as the phrase "states rights" was a political ploy used to defend segregation.

That's yet another flat out lie from your twisted universe. Some of us believe that homosexuality is a sin. "gay marriage" is a declaration that two (or more?) people are choosing to embrace that sin. It is a fundamental religious right of the Church to refuse to participate in somebody's choice to do so.

It is not for you to decide what religious beliefs we should hold or honor.

[Cerebrum123]

I had forgotten that.

Good to have a guy like you around.

My short term memory isn't so great, but after a certain point things seem to stick better.

[Darth Executor]

Sure there is. I can respect consistent liberty, even when it excludes me. I don't care if they have a "National Pacific Islander Month" as long as they don't bitch about "National European Month". But the leftist hypocrisy is so strong that it stinks.

I don't personally care either. But if they can organize in ways they won't allow me to organize it is better that I don't allow them to organize at all.

Why? I'd rather they see the error of their ways instead.

That would be a preferable option but a world in which they suffer what they inflict on others is still better than the current one.

[Cow Poke]

...I do not believe the people who are currently talking about "religious freedom" are generally acting in good faith

This is probably due to the fact that you are so morally decrepit that you think others must be, also.

- they are hiding anti-gay discrimination behind an extremely thin veneer of pretending to be advocating for general religious freedom.

So, a slimy and dishonest blogger is accusing me of being a liar.

[Cerebrum123]

This is probably due to the fact that you are so morally decrepit that you think others must be, also.



So, a slimy and dishonest blogger is accusing me of being a liar.

firstfloor was the "slimy and dishonest" one. Not Starlight. Although, given his previous posts, I can see why you might get them confused.

[Starlight]

Yes, it's quite obvious that you're not a fan of religious liberty.
...
It is not for you to decide what religious beliefs we should hold or honor.

And I am totally fine with religious liberty within reasonable bounds. You can believe whatever you like about God(s) and angels and demons and whatever else, and have religious images or no religious images as you choose, and have whatever ceremonies you like.

But the boundary is where you start hurting other people. Your liberty ends where other people begin. If you are a religious terrorist who kills other people by flying planes into buildings, then your religious freedom doesn't cover that. If you are a hatemonger who kills other people by fermenting discrimination and prejudice, then your religious freedom doesn't cover that. You don't get to get away with mass murder under the guise of "religious freedom".

[Cerebrum123]

And I am totally fine with religious liberty within reasonable bounds. You can believe whatever you like about God(s) and angels and demons and whatever else, and have religious images or no religious images as you choose, and have whatever ceremonies you like.

But the boundary is where you start hurting other people. Your liberty ends where other people begin. If you are a religious terrorist who kills other people by flying planes into buildings, then your religious freedom doesn't cover that. If you are a hatemonger who kills other people by fermenting discrimination and prejudice, then your religious freedom doesn't cover that. You don't get to get away with mass murder under the guise of "religious freedom".

Yeah, because choosing not to participate in a wedding is essentially the same as flying a plane into a building full of people.