Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why aren't we suing restaurants for not treating shoeless people with the same equal rights as people who wear shoes?

This stupid comparison has been brought up several times in the thread.


For one thing, it's a liability issue not an equal rights issue. Broken glass in the feet results in lawsuits.
But besides that, no one is allowed to enter without shoes. Not men, not women, not blacks, not whites, not straights, not gays. It is not a discriminatory policy.

a reply to: Phage

I was the one who brought it up. Sorry you think it is stupid. But are we talking absolutes or just what we think is stupid or not stupid?
The guy said something absolute and he was absolutely wrong. Why do you have a hard time with that? After all, Thomas More was beheaded for his adherence to the law. In fact he went up against the King on the issue of divorce. Why can't we discuss these things without people telling us how stupid we are?

Look at it another way, everyone can enter except......blah blah blah

restaurants are discriminating against blah blah blah

So now what's really the difference?
All heterosexual couples can get married in blah blah church....all people wearing shoes can enter a restaurant and be served....

People do not really want to go by the laws unless they are tailored to their specific desires.

The average restaurant makes a ruling against shoeless people. It's so simple. Do Progressives go after restaurants for telling shoeless people they cannot be served there? It's the same principle. The principle though that Progressives really care about is that they get government to do their bidding for their particular desires or agendas and everyone else be darned.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why can't we discuss these things without people telling us how stupid we are?

I didn't say you are stupid. It doesn't take a stupid person to bring a stupid argument.
It usually just means that they've run out of rational ones.

a reply to: Phage

And therefore you are calling me a stupid person for making a "stupid argument"

Because you refuse to see the principle behind it.

Like I said, Thomas More was beheaded for adhering strictly to principle. But for people steeped in the rules of secular humanism, everything has to be clouded by relative perception that changes and shifts like the sands of the beach.

Just for you Phage, I found a site that features what they refer to as "Stupid laws". Personally, I would classify some of them as laws only Progressives care about.

Let's start with California shall we?

In San Jose and Sunnyvale it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags.
You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard’s permission.
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.
It’s unlawful to let a dog pursue a bear or bobcat at any time.
No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

or how about molesting lizards in city parks...what person thought of that?

SECTION 8-410. DISTURBING ANIMALS IN PARKS. No person shall hunt, pursue, annoy, throw stones or missiles at, or molest or disturb in any way, any animal, bird or reptile within the confines of any park. (Orig. Ord. 1076).

www.dumblaws.com...


Obviously there are many odd and stupid ordinances.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And therefore you are calling me a stupid person for making a "stupid argument"

Nope. Lots of people make stupid statements. Like I said, it doesn't mean they are stupid.

Change is the nature of the Universe. Do you think the move from slavery was a bad thing? Do you think the legal abolishment of discrimination because someone is not the same as you is a bad thing? Too bad the Romans stopped killing Christians, huh?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Bowing at altars sounds more like something Christians are into, not me.

I want everyone to be able to stand up tall and live their lives as they choose.

I don't want the Knapps to do anything but obey the law, a law which treats everyone equitably.

They don't have to perform these marriages themselves, but their business does have to treat all members of the public equally. There are many solutions which could solve both sides of the issue, but no, those solutions are not searched for.

Instead, they turn themselves into victims and cry to the media.

Tell me, what do you think your sniping little personal remark, taking something out of context that I said to someone else accomplishes?

Would you say it serves the goals of the Prince of Peace?

Oh wait, that's just for church, right?

How typical.

BUSTED!!

Once again, it's all a big f*cking con. As if we couldn't tell already. Check this out. Deeply held beliefs my ass. The ADL and Heritage Foundation are LYING and MANIPULATING not just the public at large but even carelessly toying with the lives of the people they allegedly represent.

You got to check this out:
Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case

a reply to: Phage

And Christians were among the first abolitionists due to their belief that slavery was sinful.

I did misread your post though....

originally posted by: mOjOm
BUSTED!!

Once again, it's all a big f*cking con. As if we couldn't tell already. Check this out. Deeply held beliefs my ass. The ADL and Heritage Foundation are LYING and MANIPULATING not just the public at large but even carelessly toying with the lives of the people they allegedly represent.

You got to check this out:
Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case

Good find, though strangely, it makes me a little sad. Deception rules, it seems.

I wonder if someone can find their original operating agreement for their LLC, I'd just bet the "religious corporation" language is a bit more freshly minted than 1989.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Obviously there are many odd and stupid ordinances.

And you classify anti-discrimination laws as stupid?
I might have to alter my statement about stupid comments. Sometimes they can indicate something about the speaker.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Phage

And therefore you are calling me a stupid person for making a "stupid argument"

Because you refuse to see the principle behind it.

Like I said, Thomas More was beheaded for adhering strictly to principle. But for people steeped in the rules of secular humanism, everything has to be clouded by relative perception that changes and shifts like the sands of the beach.

Just for you Phage, I found a site that features what they refer to as "Stupid laws". Personally, I would classify some of them as laws only Progressives care about.

Let's start with California shall we?

In San Jose and Sunnyvale it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags.
You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard’s permission.
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.
It’s unlawful to let a dog pursue a bear or bobcat at any time.
No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

or how about molesting lizards in city parks...what person thought of that?

SECTION 8-410. DISTURBING ANIMALS IN PARKS. No person shall hunt, pursue, annoy, throw stones or missiles at, or molest or disturb in any way, any animal, bird or reptile within the confines of any park. (Orig. Ord. 1076).

www.dumblaws.com...


Obviously there are many odd and stupid ordinances.

Get to the part about Satan controlling the secular humanists. I don't know how many more of your posts I can wade through. I want the highlights!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Bowing at altars sounds more like something Christians are into, not me.

Surely you knew what I meant. You're sooooo coy!

I want everyone to be able to stand up tall and live their lives as they choose.

Sure as long as it fits into your preferred lifestyle and belief system and approved by the Thought Police.

I don't want the Knapps to do anything but obey the law, a law which treats everyone equitably.

ok law is law right? But the courts do try to adjudicate according to their perception of it.

They don't have to perform these marriages themselves, but their business does have to treat all members of the public equally. There are many solutions which could solve both sides of the issue, but no, those solutions are not searched for.

This is just the solution that you feel is personally desirable. It seems reasonable at face value. But again, why aren't you willing to just find a church which will do it for you? Apparently they do exist.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That's true, some Quakers and Unitarians did support Abolition.

But the fact is that the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, fully supports slavery, calling it an expression of God's Divine will.

St. Augustine accepted slavery as a fact of life. Most of the Church Elders either accepted slavery or actually promoted the idea.

Ah, but that's just old history, right? Modern Christians don't believe that ...

Except that in this posting from 1992, entitled Why Christians Should Support Slavery and published on Christian History.com the website of Christianity Today, provides a series of explanations of just why the Bible supports the idea of Slavery.

God's Word is God's Will, after all.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is just the solution that you feel is personally desirable. It seems reasonable at face value. But again, why aren't you willing to just find a church which will do it for you? Apparently they do exist.

You don't even know what this is about, do you?
No one threatened these people. No one sued them. They brought this upon themselves by claiming that they are exempt from the law. But they aren't. No one is discriminating against them. They are the ones who want to discriminate. No one is affecting their freedom to practice their religion. They can practice their religion in pretty much any way they want.

They also run a business. They sell marriages. They are not allowed, by law, to decide who they can sell marriages to. Their rights end where there clients' rights begin.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Obviously there are many odd and stupid ordinances.

And you classify anti-discrimination laws as stupid?
I might have to alter my statement about stupid comments. Sometimes they can indicate something about the speaker.

I didn't say that anywhere and you are either purposely twisting my statements or just like the idea of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.

You are the one that made light of my example of the restaurant and shoeless people. I made that point to the other individual because he was just flat out wrong.

This is definitely an all out attack on traditional constitutional freedoms, at least it seems like that to me. (Freedoms outlined and mentioned as self evident.) This is what I expected to see some day when I first saw those who wanted to change current (then) socially accepted societal structures.
Now it is being forced upon people. Back in the earlier days if you were different, you found a place where you could be with like minded people, and then you could avoid having to hear the things you didn't want to hear, and you could exist happily apart from those that didn't share your values.

Now you must accept and agree with what you are told to accept and believe PUBLICLY or be jailed or fined, or both.

This is constitutionally invalid and unlawful for government to do. But not un expected outcome with the militant gay community, which are not as numerous as the media would have you believe. This is not main stream, although it's being sold that way by preying upon and exploiting everyone's inherent compassions to let people that are not the same in a traditional sense to let live, or to live and let live. America has already been doing that for decades.

Now it is "Live and accept all that government tells you is acceptable and follow the new rules of that forced acceptance, and do not resist it, or be punished"

Totally illegal, and constitutionally nullified. This is the same old BS tactic that we have all seen before, being used to make you publically accept what was once not accepted publically and by government also, and it is being done forcefully because it can't succeed otherwise. No one has a legal standing in government in America to do this to any person, so it is being done like an assault and assuming governmental powers that it does not actually have. For either making you accept or not accept anything at all. No one can force you in a free country to accept or not accept ANYTHING!

When those in government start to do this here in America, they are saying they do not respect you (whether you are gay or not makes no difference), and they are saying the United States Constitution has NO POWER to them. They are spitting on it, and you even if you agree with them. Because this same tactic, if it is applauded for the sake of empowering gays for what they want, will be exploited and abused for MUCH, MUCH MORE in the future, and it will crush you under foot just like STALIN, MAO, and Hitler did to so many. Just like some in our land's highest offices are attempting to do right now. What leads by example, soon follows be example.

These tactics have hidden accomplices and benefactors too. Those at the very top of these kinds of actions may not even be supporters of the gay community! Those at the very top of these kinds of actions can see the value of exploting this kind of thing, in the hopes that if this is successful and can find a way to continue without being legally halted, will be definitely used to further other more lofty goals of forcing people to reject or condone other beliefs, or forcing you to accept other things, with even greater punishments if you do not comply.

People doing this kind of thing in government, to me, is death penalty treason against American citizens and American law. Doesn't matter if you support or do not support whatever they are telling you that you must support, or not support.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I didn't say that anywhere and you are either purposely twisting my statements or just like the idea of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.

You are the one who brought up completely irrelevant "stupid laws" in the same way you compared shoeless patrons to gays.

You are the one that made light of my example of the restaurant and shoeless people.

I didn't make light of it. I said it was a stupid and inapplicable argument. It is.

a reply to: Gryphon66


That's exactly right. Modern Christians do not believe in slavery. Are you the one who also brought up shellfish or was that someone else ? Want to throw in a few more of those while you're at it?
It was a way of life around the globe at one time. It's not like only Christians had slaves. You do know that the Egyptian Pharaohs had slaves. They were not Christian. Times have changed haven't they.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, I know what you said and I pointed out the irony if not the silliness of it.

I don't ask that anyone believe as I do, think as I do, or do anything as I do, except obey the law.

Who are you? Do you know me? Do you know anything about me? No, you don't.

You're making your cruddy little comments on an internet message board hiding behind a screen name like a coward.

You have no evidence for any position, and no logical support, so now all you're doing is sniping and regurgitating political BS like a bitter little snot.

I don't give a hoot in hell what these people do, personally. They've been shown to be liars. Their case will be thrown out of court.

The solution that is "personally desirable" to me is that they get to keep their so-called beliefs intact and that their business serves the public as is required by law. That's what we used to call a win-win scenario.

Sorry to find a solution that doesn't include more fronting for the "Christians are Victims" meme.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This is definitely an all out attack on traditional constitutional freedoms, at least it seems like that to me. T

Where does the constitution provide the freedom to discriminate against others?