|
Post by THawk on Nov 30, 2017 14:14:55 GMT
I am not a conservative in any way, shape, or form. You aren't fooling anyone, pumpkin. A. You couldn't document the first party of that bullshit if your life depended on it. B. Educators would have no problem teaching about "the non-material and the eternal" if there were some evidence for them that was relevant. Good luck finding some. Until then, educators will stick to reality. Sorry if that drives wingnuts like you crazy. You can certainly document income inequality, but not any of the rest of your deluded bullshit. And you certainly couldn't link Western education to any of it. Conservative Christians certainly are damaging their children, but that is the price one pays for freedom. They can always be woken up once exposed to other ideas outside of the home, and that happens quite often. One can't expect an ignorant conservative such as yourself to understand any of this. So "brainwashing" children into "damaging beliefs" is the "price one pays for freedom".....but not baking a wedding cake is a price too steep? This is getting beyond any definition of pathetic I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 30, 2017 14:24:06 GMT
tpfkar I am not a conservative in any way, shape, or form. I just think you either have religious freedom, or you don't. Your head is so far up your ass you can only differentiate between your tribe and all others who you automatically brand as enemies, because you cannot stand anyone to have a different opinion. That is what true intolerance is. And your defense of western education is a testament to that. Western education teaches children that the only thing that matters is carnal desires and material pleasures, while ignoring the non-material and the eternal. That is why so many young people are atheists these days. Not because they "think for themselves" and they've been "enlightened," but because hedonism is injected into their veins and they become resistant to anything that tries to tell them there's more to existence. It's a powerful drug. The fruits of western education btw is a society rife with sexual abuse, perversion, and income inequality. And again, once again, the question remains unanswered. If you find conservative Christians so insanely damaging to their own children (one could hardly imagine worse things than "brainwashing"), then what kind of monster are if you don't demand for laws to take these children off their parents? If your "enemies" are that despicable, surely you must save the most innocent in society from them? Send in the army, raid homes? Surely brainwashing a child is a hell of a lot worse than not baking a cake? Good lord you spout the shyte. There's nothing in there about "tribe" other than you trying to protect your own conservative / religious brand while barking silly about how you're not, really for true. All you freaks obsessing over anything you want to call "hedonism" or whatever rattles around in your brains that frighten you so all the while being nasty to people who don't hold to your perverse ideas received via groomed hate-other savage fiction. People have a lot of leeway with raising their kids, but of course at times the authorities do need to step in if they're making them anti-social pricks or are just maiming and killing them. faith
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2017 17:45:59 GMT
So "brainwashing" children into "damaging beliefs" is the "price one pays for freedom".....but not baking a wedding cake is a price too steep? The alternative is allowing the state to dictate what ideas parents raise their children with. We lose nothing by forcing business owners to not discriminate, except making pathetic whiners like you mad, which is more like a plus. Yes, you are quite pathetic, as many here already know and have known for a while.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 30, 2017 20:39:10 GMT
All Western countries that I know of, have religious freedom, including yours and mine. No-one is prevented from believing in the religion of their choice. What we don't have is conservative religious people demanding exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, and their 'God given' right to bigotry. It is a case of do what you want in your religion as long as it does not adversely affect another person. You are quite entitled to an opinion as long as your don't project that onto someone else in your actions in the name of that opinion especially if is religious bigotry. That is abject nonsense about education. Why would anyone want to take children away from their parents unless it was a case of child abuse? They don't, except in the limited cases such as harmful abusive cults and where JW's refuse treatment for their children and let them die. You are full of shit! Again, your only definition of religious freedom seems to be "allowed to believe what they want." Which is ridiculous. By that definition freakin' Saudi Arabia has religious freedom. The hypocrisy is that you seem to believe conservatives are so evil and need to be fined if not jailed by so-called "anti-discrimination laws," for things as absurd as not baking a SSM wedding cake....yet it's perfectly legal for these "evil conservatives" to "brainwash" their children at home? Is not the latter a hell of a lot more in need of government intervention than the former? Except you know that your demonization of people falls apart if you are called to put the logistics of what you believe to a test. Sheesh! What part of don't you get? People who break the law deserve fining or in extreme cases jailing whether it is anti-discrimination laws or any other. It is not against the law to teach your children your own views, however it is against the law not to send them to school unless you a qualified to home school. These 'logistics' are bourne out by legislation to protect everyone from extremism such as yours.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Nov 30, 2017 20:54:54 GMT
Again, your only definition of religious freedom seems to be "allowed to believe what they want." Which is ridiculous. By that definition freakin' Saudi Arabia has religious freedom. The hypocrisy is that you seem to believe conservatives are so evil and need to be fined if not jailed by so-called "anti-discrimination laws," for things as absurd as not baking a SSM wedding cake....yet it's perfectly legal for these "evil conservatives" to "brainwash" their children at home? Is not the latter a hell of a lot more in need of government intervention than the former? Except you know that your demonization of people falls apart if you are called to put the logistics of what you believe to a test. Sheesh! What part of don't you get? People who break the law deserve fining or in extreme cases jailing whether it is anti-discrimination laws or any other. It is not against the law to teach your children your own views, however it is against the law not to send them to school unless you a qualified to home school. These 'logistics' are bourne out by legislation to protect everyone from extremism such as yours. Right, then you should be the first in line to protest against these laws? If people deserve fining/jailing for not baking a wedding cake, surely they deserve a hell of a lot worse for "brainwashing" children? If you really feel gay people are in any way shape or form harmed by a Christian baker not making them a cake, just how much more "damage" are those children suffering? Still waiting for an adequate explanation for why you are fine with children being subjected to such "damage" ? And btw, in America the gay cakes case starts Supreme Court hearing next week. If there is any shred of common sense, religious freedom will be protected, and the law will side with the Christian baker. If it does not, then it will become a huge question in the US as well, why aren't children being dragged out of the homes of conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 30, 2017 21:33:46 GMT
Sheesh! What part of don't you get? People who break the law deserve fining or in extreme cases jailing whether it is anti-discrimination laws or any other. It is not against the law to teach your children your own views, however it is against the law not to send them to school unless you a qualified to home school. These 'logistics' are bourne out by legislation to protect everyone from extremism such as yours. Right, then you should be the first in line to protest against these laws? If people deserve fining/jailing for not baking a wedding cake, surely they deserve a hell of a lot worse for "brainwashing" children? If you really feel gay people are in any way shape or form harmed by a Christian baker not making them a cake, just how much more "damage" are those children suffering? Still waiting for an adequate explanation for why you are fine with children being subjected to such "damage" ? And btw, in America the gay cakes case starts Supreme Court hearing next week. If there is any shred of common sense, religious freedom will be protected, and the law will side with the Christian baker. If it does not, then it will become a huge question in the US as well, why aren't children being dragged out of the homes of conservatives. You obviously don't understand the concept of the secular law of the land, do you? and clearly neither fully read or more particularly understood what I just wrote.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 1, 2017 0:47:35 GMT
Right, then you should be the first in line to protest against these laws? If people deserve fining/jailing for not baking a wedding cake, surely they deserve a hell of a lot worse for "brainwashing" children? If you really feel gay people are in any way shape or form harmed by a Christian baker not making them a cake, just how much more "damage" are those children suffering? Still waiting for an adequate explanation for why you are fine with children being subjected to such "damage" ? And btw, in America the gay cakes case starts Supreme Court hearing next week. If there is any shred of common sense, religious freedom will be protected, and the law will side with the Christian baker. If it does not, then it will become a huge question in the US as well, why aren't children being dragged out of the homes of conservatives. You obviously don't understand the concept of the secular law of the land, do you? and clearly neither fully read or more particularly understood what I just wrote. I understand completely, you are just upset that someone is challenging the logistics of your worldview, and you have no answer to give to the dilemma. That's fine, just next time have a bit more of a think before labeling vast swaths of people as bigots, and realize that if you can tolerate them raising children, you can tolerate a gay couple having to walk next door to get its wedding cake.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 1, 2017 2:00:49 GMT
You obviously don't understand the concept of the secular law of the land, do you? and clearly neither fully read or more particularly understood what I just wrote. I understand completely, you are just upset that someone is challenging the logistics of your worldview, and you have no answer to give to the dilemma. That's fine, just next time have a bit more of a think before labeling vast swaths of people as bigots, and realize that if you can tolerate them raising children, you can tolerate a gay couple having to walk next door to get its wedding cake. Let me get this straight then: When you say this do you advocate that people, such as the bigot baker, and yourself, should be exempt from the law of your land, because of your personal religious beliefs, which you're are calling 'religious freedom', over and above your rights to believe what you wish and not push that personal view on others? If so, what makes you think that you have that 'right'? YOUR worldview seems to assume that religious people, like you, have some 'God given' right to disobey or be exempt from the laws of your country.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 1, 2017 2:56:06 GMT
I understand completely, you are just upset that someone is challenging the logistics of your worldview, and you have no answer to give to the dilemma. That's fine, just next time have a bit more of a think before labeling vast swaths of people as bigots, and realize that if you can tolerate them raising children, you can tolerate a gay couple having to walk next door to get its wedding cake. Let me get this straight then: When you say this do you advocate that people, such as the bigot baker, and yourself, should be exempt from the law of your land, because of your personal religious beliefs, which you're are calling 'religious freedom', over and above your rights to believe what you wish and not push that personal view on others? If so, what makes you think that you have that 'right'? YOUR worldview seems to assume that religious people, like you, have some 'God given' right to disobey or be exempt from the laws of your country. Your failure to answer the question continues to be noted. And first...is that an assumption that I am an American? Or that if I happened to be a baker, I would do the same as him? And again, you are calling someone a bigot without knowing anything about them other than their faith? You are desperately wrong on all accounts, which seems to be a theme here. I am advocating that the laws themselves need to change if they are against religious freedom. Many countries around the world lack religious freedom in their laws; the West is falling in that category as well. An atheist baker should 100% have the right to reject a Christian wedding cake. Does that make me anti-Christian? A Palestinian baker should not have to make a pro-Israel cake. Does that make me anti-semitic? And so on. It has nothing to do with "God given rights." Everything to do with freedom. Which as you demonstrated in the OP and every other post, you definitely do not understand, or want.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 1, 2017 4:45:52 GMT
Let me get this straight then: When you say this do you advocate that people, such as the bigot baker, and yourself, should be exempt from the law of your land, because of your personal religious beliefs, which you're are calling 'religious freedom', over and above your rights to believe what you wish and not push that personal view on others? If so, what makes you think that you have that 'right'? YOUR worldview seems to assume that religious people, like you, have some 'God given' right to disobey or be exempt from the laws of your country. Your failure to answer the question continues to be noted. And first...is that an assumption that I am an American? Or that if I happened to be a baker, I would do the same as him? And again, you are calling someone a bigot without knowing anything about them other than their faith? You are desperately wrong on all accounts, which seems to be a theme here. I am advocating that the laws themselves need to change if they are against religious freedom. Many countries around the world lack religious freedom in their laws; the West is falling in that category as well. An atheist baker should 100% have the right to reject a Christian wedding cake. Does that make me anti-Christian? A Palestinian baker should not have to make a pro-Israel cake. Does that make me anti-semitic? And so on. It has nothing to do with "God given rights." Everything to do with freedom. Which as you demonstrated in the OP and every other post, you definitely do not understand, or want. Actually you are the one who didn't answer whether you subscribe to religious people breaking such laws as anti-discrimination in the pursuit of this thing ( which is the subject of the thread.ie WTF IS religious freedom?) From this comment, I must assume that you would break said laws, despite your denials in the first paragraph. I am really sick of going over YET AGAIN, the difference between freedom to hold your own beliefs and NOT freedom to impose them on others, especially when it is against the law. You may not like that your views are bigoted and discriminatory, butt they are, as you keep demonstrating.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 1, 2017 14:08:11 GMT
Your failure to answer the question continues to be noted. And first...is that an assumption that I am an American? Or that if I happened to be a baker, I would do the same as him? And again, you are calling someone a bigot without knowing anything about them other than their faith? You are desperately wrong on all accounts, which seems to be a theme here. I am advocating that the laws themselves need to change if they are against religious freedom. Many countries around the world lack religious freedom in their laws; the West is falling in that category as well. An atheist baker should 100% have the right to reject a Christian wedding cake. Does that make me anti-Christian? A Palestinian baker should not have to make a pro-Israel cake. Does that make me anti-semitic? And so on. It has nothing to do with "God given rights." Everything to do with freedom. Which as you demonstrated in the OP and every other post, you definitely do not understand, or want. Actually you are the one who didn't answer whether you subscribe to religious people breaking such laws as anti-discrimination in the pursuit of this thing ( which is the subject of the thread.ie WTF IS religious freedom?) From this comment, I must assume that you would break said laws, despite your denials in the first paragraph. I am really sick of going over YET AGAIN, the difference between freedom to hold your own beliefs and NOT freedom to impose them on others, especially when it is against the law. You may not like that your views are bigoted and discriminatory, butt they are, as you keep demonstrating. No, as I explained, if I was a baker I wouldn't really give a shit, and I wouldn't advise other bakers to break the law for something as silly as a wedding cake. But that is completely beside the point, as what I am saying is that if a country argues that it respects religious freedom, its laws need to reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 1, 2017 15:51:20 GMT
No, as I explained, if I was a baker I wouldn't really give a shit, and I wouldn't advise other bakers to break the law for something as silly as a wedding cake. But that is completely beside the point, as what I am saying is that if a country argues that it respects religious freedom, its laws need to reflect that. If the baker loses in the Supreme Court (which, btw, will come down to Justice Kennedy) it won't be due to lack of respect for religious freedom. There is no religious right to avoid neutral, generally applicable laws. The baker's loss will only affirm what had been previously established - that laws not targeted at a particular religion, but that apply to everyone without reference to belief or religion, are constitutional. It was not so long ago that a vendor would have claimed a religious objection to serving an interracial couple. The vendor refusing a gay couple has no better case than he would have.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 16:08:13 GMT
Let me get this straight then: When you say this do you advocate that people, such as the bigot baker, and yourself, should be exempt from the law of your land, because of your personal religious beliefs, which you're are calling 'religious freedom', over and above your rights to believe what you wish and not push that personal view on others? If so, what makes you think that you have that 'right'? YOUR worldview seems to assume that religious people, like you, have some 'God given' right to disobey or be exempt from the laws of your country. Your failure to answer the question continues to be noted. And first...is that an assumption that I am an American? Or that if I happened to be a baker, I would do the same as him? And again, you are calling someone a bigot without knowing anything about them other than their faith? You are desperately wrong on all accounts, which seems to be a theme here. I am advocating that the laws themselves need to change if they are against religious freedom. Many countries around the world lack religious freedom in their laws; the West is falling in that category as well. An atheist baker should 100% have the right to reject a Christian wedding cake. Does that make me anti-Christian? A Palestinian baker should not have to make a pro-Israel cake. Does that make me anti-semitic? And so on. It has nothing to do with "God given rights." Everything to do with freedom. Which as you demonstrated in the OP and every other post, you definitely do not understand, or want. Well, laws don;t necessarily concern themselves with religious freedom as an action. If a country or state or municipality defines discrimination as harm then they can indeed make a law for it even if it's a silly one in the context of sole proprietorship where the business and the person are exactly the same. It is what it is. What the business should make clear is they don;t want to service any articular group despite being forced to do so which should guarantee the most minimum amount of interaction with a gay customer unless that gay customer is an idiot who still wants a cake from the place
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 1, 2017 17:47:50 GMT
An atheist baker should 100% have the right to reject a Christian wedding cake. Does that make me anti-Christian? A Palestinian baker should not have to make a pro-Israel cake. Does that make me anti-semitic? And so on. It has nothing to do with "God given rights." Everything to do with freedom. Which as you demonstrated in the OP and every other post, you definitely do not understand, or want. Thankfully, wiser and more civilized heads have prevailed and the ugly world you wish for will never come. Grow up and get used to it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 2, 2017 9:38:37 GMT
No, as I explained, if I was a baker I wouldn't really give a shit, and I wouldn't advise other bakers to break the law for something as silly as a wedding cake. But that is completely beside the point, as what I am saying is that if a country argues that it respects religious freedom, its laws need to reflect that. If the baker loses in the Supreme Court (which, btw, will come down to Justice Kennedy) it won't be due to lack of respect for religious freedom. There is no religious right to avoid neutral, generally applicable laws. The baker's loss will only affirm what had been previously established - that laws not targeted at a particular religion, but that apply to everyone without reference to belief or religion, are constitutional. It was not so long ago that a vendor would have claimed a religious objection to serving an interracial couple. The vendor refusing a gay couple has no better case than he would have.
What is religious freedom?
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 2, 2017 23:25:22 GMT
If the baker loses in the Supreme Court (which, btw, will come down to Justice Kennedy) it won't be due to lack of respect for religious freedom. There is no religious right to avoid neutral, generally applicable laws. The baker's loss will only affirm what had been previously established - that laws not targeted at a particular religion, but that apply to everyone without reference to belief or religion, are constitutional. It was not so long ago that a vendor would have claimed a religious objection to serving an interracial couple. The vendor refusing a gay couple has no better case than he would have.
What is religious freedom? With this next case the U.S. Supreme Court will answer your question very thoroughly, and will set the precedent for years to come. I do expect that the baker will lose, to your delight; my indifference; and the disappointment of many good and honest folks.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 3, 2017 4:07:12 GMT
G What is religious freedom? With this next case the U.S. Supreme Court will answer your question very thoroughly, and will set the precedent for years to come. I do expect that the baker will lose, to your delight; my indifference; and the disappointment of many good and honest folks. Good, I hope so, otherwise it would entrench legalised discrimination and bigotry, which is the very opposite of 'freedom'.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 15:01:09 GMT
tpfkar I understand completely, you are just upset that someone is challenging the logistics of your worldview, and you have no answer to give to the dilemma. That's fine, just next time have a bit more of a think before labeling vast swaths of people as bigots, and realize that if you can tolerate them raising children, you can tolerate a gay couple having to walk next door to get its wedding cake. Borked logic. Wide latitude in private matters as long as they aren't endangering or stunting their kids is an entirely different thing than refusing service to classes of people based color, gender, sexuality, etc., regardless whether the nasty bigotry is prompted by savage & immoral old texts or more modern pernicious political ideologies. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 6, 2017 14:51:07 GMT
tpfkar Lets be real here Gad. You can point to Uganda and CAR. You could probably include the former Yugoslavia if you like, but the scale of the two things is not even close. Not in number of attacks, number of deaths nor how widespread they are. Because Christians follow a hippy, woodwork enthusiast who lived with his mum and Muslims follow a warlord who loved to kill Jews and rape children. Terrorism just isn't the measure, as mischief from within is a much bigger problem. And nobody's suggested that "Islamic terrorism" isn't currently much bigger than most other overt violence. But "Islamic" vs. territorial/revenge is hard to discern with the constant roilings, displacement, outright adventurism and of course nonstop shrill blatant hypocrisies. Masculinity was just fine until regressives decided White Straight Men were somewhere between Hitler and fecal matter.
|
|