Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still trying to score political points by spinning the bad elements on one side but ignoring them entirely on your own. We are aware of the fact that people on every side use violence, threats, vandalism and worse. And we wish to see them, on all sides, brought to justice for doing so.
But what a lot it says that you use some of them to score political points, while we do not. Perhaps because we have arguments and facts to back up our opinions and you do not, so you cling to anything you can.
Mainly because you do not WANT to see it. But the propaganda move of simply re-wording the bigotry from homosexuals to specifically homosexual events does not change it. The words change, but the reality remains identical. They broke the law, they paid the price, this is a good thing.
If they were bigots against homosexuals then they wouldn't even sell them a doughnut. They had no problem doing business with anyone regardless of sexual orientation until the customers demanded that they be dragged into their immoral ceremony. Yes, there is a difference, but funny how your zealous need to argue against everything I post shows that you can't even be consistent. You said before that you think the businesses should have a right to refuse service, but now you are back on the opposite side of the fence saying it's a good thing that they were punished severely.
They had no problem doing business with anyone regardless of sexual orientation until the customers demanded that they be dragged into their immoral ceremony.
If you post something that is wrong, you will find people will be happy to correct you. And you are wrong here. They broke the law due to their bigotry and they were prosecuted for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You said before that you think the businesses should have a right to refuse service, but now you are back on the opposite side of the fence saying it's a good thing that they were punished severely.
Yes because they broke the law due to their bigotry. And it is good that law breakers and prosecuted for it. There is no conflict or inconsistency in my position. There are aspects of the law I want changed, but WHILE it is the law I want it adhered to. No contradiction or inconsistency there except for the one you imagine in order to, as usual, reply to things I do not say or think in order to dodge the things I do.
If they were bigots against homosexuals then they wouldn't even sell them a doughnut. They had no problem doing business with anyone regardless of sexual orientation until the customers demanded that they be dragged into their immoral ceremony. Yes, there is a difference, but funny how your zealous need to argue against everything I post shows that you can't even be consistent. You said before that you think the businesses should have a right to refuse service, but now you are back on the opposite side of the fence saying it's a good thing that they were punished severely.
You are dishonest plain and simple. The women did not go in demanding the baker make a cake for their immoral ceremony. The one women went in with her mother, a previous purchaser of the baker's wedding cakes, to order a wedding cake. There was no demand. A baker or any other busienss owner can refuse service to anyone who demands a goods or service as that is rude and rudness is not protected by law. Upon refusal the woman left the bakery n tears. The use of firey language to deplict a scene to appear totally different that what actually occurred (even from the baker's own testimony). The ceremony is not immoral nor is it illegal. Two people loving each other and wishing to commit to each other is not immoral, nor is it anti Christian as lesbians and gays can get married in some Christian churches.
And I see on a different post you spoke about someone vandalizing a church do to the church's anti gay stance. You do like to cherry pick when gays, people supporting gays or people using gays as an excuse for vandalism or threats but completely ignore or dismiss the same aimed at gays. Try doing a search for attacks on gay businesses homes or persons but no your narrative is the Christians are persecuted and bullied.
Your constant refusal to see the differences in totally different situations is the reason you think others are inconsistent. You are still not answered the basic questions of who gets to decide if a law is immoral and can be ignored and if it is immoral why only business owners get exception from going against their morality? Which laws do you not have to follow if you think it is immoral?
If you post something that is wrong, you will find people will be happy to correct you. And you are wrong here. They broke the law due to their bigotry and they were prosecuted for it.
Yes because they broke the law due to their bigotry. And it is good that law breakers and prosecuted for it. There is no conflict or inconsistency in my position. There are aspects of the law I want changed, but WHILE it is the law I want it adhered to. No contradiction or inconsistency there except for the one you imagine in order to, as usual, reply to things I do not say or think in order to dodge the things I do.
They broke the law as a matter of civil disobedience. They are being condemned because they are Christian and their beliefs conflict with the law. That is their right and their obligation to do this.
If you post something that is wrong, you will find people will be happy to correct you. And you are wrong here. They broke the law due to their bigotry and they were prosecuted for it.
They broke the law because of their deeply held faith. The fact that your side has to constantly cover it with the ugly word "biogtry" just shows that you need a crutch to try and look superior. The legal argument is pointless when we are discussing the morality of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Yes because they broke the law due to their bigotry. And it is good that law breakers and prosecuted for it. There is no conflict or inconsistency in my position. There are aspects of the law I want changed, but WHILE it is the law I want it adhered to. No contradiction or inconsistency there except for the one you imagine in order to, as usual, reply to things I do not say or think in order to dodge the things I do.
It is not good when a law is wrong and violates other laws like freedom of religion. When sodomy was illegal, would you have say it's good to criminalize and punish homosexuals for their behavior? Law breakers!!! You can't tell me that you don't support a law and in the same sentence say that it is good that the person is punished for breaking the law. That's a contradiction.
Westboro Baptists must be a fine example of Christians hating gays. You are as much part of the Westboro Baptists and all that they say and do as all or even the majority of gays are part of the vandals that hit this church or threatened the baker and his family. It was not gays that targeted Jewish cemeteries or burnt down black churches. There are many with lots of hate out there and will reach out and attack and oft times just attack using whatever is in the news for their targets. Vandalism, threats and even hate are wrong. For you to always pick up on the anti Christian messages and totally ignore the hate coming from Christians blinds you to the fact that it is not one side attacking the innocent defenceless other side. Listen to some of the hate coming from the Christian radio talk shows and preachers. There is so much hate preached against gays and accussations that the gays are out to destroy your religion and your way of life coming from those hate mongers that it is scary.
Do you also condemm the hate that some Christians spew towards the LBGT communities? No you repeat some of it.
You are dishonest plain and simple. The women did not go in demanding the baker make a cake for their immoral ceremony. The one women went in with her mother, a previous purchaser of the baker's wedding cakes, to order a wedding cake. There was no demand. A baker or any other busienss owner can refuse service to anyone who demands a goods or service as that is rude and rudness is not protected by law. Upon refusal the woman left the bakery n tears. The use of firey language to deplict a scene to appear totally different that what actually occurred (even from the baker's own testimony). The ceremony is not immoral nor is it illegal. Two people loving each other and wishing to commit to each other is not immoral, nor is it anti Christian as lesbians and gays can get married in some Christian churches.
You are wrong, because a few churches have compromised with something so sinful, does not blanket the action on all churches .
Whether the state recognizes a law or not does not legislate God. period.
So this is a violation of interference church and state.
Lesbian chose this fight, knowing it would lead to a fight, they have been targeting a long time.
Last edited by mensaguy; 07-23-2015 at 08:23 AM..
Reason: closed quote tag
They broke the law because of their deeply held faith. The fact that your side has to constantly cover it with the ugly word "biogtry" just shows that you need a crutch to try and look superior. The legal argument is pointless when we are discussing the morality of the situation.
It is not good when a law is wrong and violates other laws like freedom of religion. When sodomy was illegal, would you have say it's good to criminalize and punish homosexuals for their behavior? Law breakers!!! You can't tell me that you don't support a law and in the same sentence say that it is good that the person is punished for breaking the law. That's a contradiction.
Jeff, you're wrong. It doesn't violate the freedom of religion as I've pointed out.
And your doughnut example is wrong as well. They offer wedding cakes. If they offer them, then they have to sell wedding cakes to everyone.
They broke the law because of their deeply held faith.
They opened a business, despite their deeply held faith, in full knowledge of the law. They have only themselves to blame. They certainly do not get to claim exemption from the law due to their faith. They have a faith, they are welcome to it, and I have no interest in removing it from them. But they do not get a free pass to break laws by waving it around in our faces. Their religious beliefs are a private matter. Breaking the law is a public matter. Learn the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The fact that your side has to constantly cover it with the ugly word "biogtry" just shows that you need a crutch to try and look superior.
As above I am aware of both the meaning of the word and why it is valid to use it in this case. However I neither need to hide, nor require a crutch, as you frequently do. I have leveled a number of arguments against their position and yours, all of which you have ignored by simply having a rant at my use of a single word. Dodge, dodge, dodge, is your ongoing MO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The legal argument is pointless when we are discussing the morality of the situation.
Just because it is inconvenient to your position does not make it magically pointless. You just want to declare it pointless to dodge it (again with the dodges). But I have commented on the morality of the situation too, in the posts you also have dodged and ignored. So I am happy to repeat it: The morality of it here is they opened a business with society in good faith, including a promise and expectation also in good faith to adhere to and follow the laws. They broke that agreement. They broke that law. And that IS immoral. To break a contract made in good faith is an immoral action. Deal with it. We have, and they have the bill to prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It is not good when a law is wrong and violates other laws like freedom of religion.
It does no such thing though, so your comment is less than relevant, but misleading. The only thing it might be violating is YOUR concept of what "freedom of religion" means but your concept of it does not match the reality at all. We understand what "freedom of religion" means. You do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
When sodomy was illegal, would you have say it's good to criminalize and punish homosexuals for their behavior? Law breakers!!!
I would have suggested people work with me to change the law, while doing their best to respect the law. So I am afraid your attempt to manufacture an inconsistency in my position where none exists with your "Whatiffery" has failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You can't tell me that you don't support a law and in the same sentence say that it is good that the person is punished for breaking the law. That's a contradiction.
Except it is not a contradiction. I am a supporter of changing the law where and when possible. I am also a supporter of following a law while it IS law. There is no contradiction there despite your desperation to manufacture one to dodge my actual points again. Quite the opposite. It is a consistent respect for the law in all its forms, including not just what currently is law, but the processes and methods for modifying and evolving it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Is "civil disobedience" something that you have never heard of?
Funny how you reply to my posts to others but ignore and dodge the ones directly to you. That said however....
Perfectly aware of it and its potential. I would never recommend employing it willy nilly on any law you happen to be against. I would reserve it for more extreme injustices to protest against a government who is refusing to change a law that the majority genuinely want changed.
That is not the case here. We have a law that I do not entirely agree with but I do not see that much call to have it changed. So I would recommend campaigning to change it in the NORMAL fashion. Education, discussion, campaigning and approaching your elected representatives and so forth.
Civil disobedience has a place, and it is not there just for those who wish to throw their toys out of the pram to justify their breaking of a law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
They are being condemned because they are Christian and their beliefs conflict with the law. That is their right and their obligation to do this.
Except it is not, which is why they were prosecuted, and rightly so. You do not get to just flout any laws you wish just for the sake of it, let alone because you invent or subscribe to a religion that you declare to be against that law. If they have religious beliefs that conflict with the legal running of a business... then bully fo them. They should not be running a business.
I certainly do not, however, require English lessons from you. I am aware both of what the word means, and why I have validly used it as I have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
