Rick Santorum Quotes WBC To Defend Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

evangelical protestants are mainstream protestants. lol what i think they mean is some evangelicals.

I can't say how they broke it down.

So, really don't know.

I find it extremely humorous that both sides of this debate try to act like they're so righteous and not bigoted. Both sides on this debate are cut from the same cloth IMO. They say they respect others, when plainly if you don't subscribe to their worldview, you are not worthy of their respect. They claim to be "tolerant" of others yet their words and deeds prove other wise . Just another example of how polarized we are as a society I guess. People with viewpoints other than their's are to be mocked and ridiculed for their stand.

SAD.......both sides.

a reply to: pavil

duly noted. think i'll go back to watching youtube videos. hehe

originally posted by: pavil
They say they respect others, . . .

I am not saying "respect others".

1. business
2. secular government
3. serve every customer equally.

a reply to: Annee

Elaborate please. Im not understanding what a secular government has to do with it. Neither side is entirely right, they both have growing up to do. Do we need a government to regulate every aspect of our existence? Personally, I'd rather have them keep their regulations to themselves. They work for me, I'm not their serf.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Annee

Elaborate please. Im not understanding what a secular government has to do with it. Neither side is entirely right, they both have growing up to do. Do we need a government to regulate every aspect of our existence? Personally, I'd rather have them keep their regulations to themselves. They work for me, I'm not their serf.

What do you mean neither side is right?

You have a business, you do your business. You can't get any simpler then that.

Love this quote by Jon Stewart.

“I didn’t realize that people in Indiana could not practice religion!” Stewart said sarcastically. “Apparently it has, up to now, been illegal. One of those quirky local laws, I guess.”

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

that's the problem, annee, they aren't doing that to themselves only, they are doing it to all of us now that the government is complicit in this whole thing. it's going to polarize the nation even more. and christians will be called upon to form an united front, on non-biblical grounds, against gays. the whole thing is horrific, and as my reward for not wanting this to happen, i have to watch it happen in some kind of sickening slow motion horror film. where one side hates me because i resemble the other side and the other side hates me because i defend the other.

is this some kind of a sick joke? [/quote

Welcome to not fitting into the two party paradigm. In the Republican threads I am dismissed as a liberal, in the Democrat threads I am dismissed as a Conservative. By the big guys in the national media I am the threat because I'm unpredictable and worse than standing with their enemy, will stand with no side at all.

2 party politics. Yes, they're a sick joke.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Annee

Elaborate please. Im not understanding what a secular government has to do with it. Neither side is entirely right, they both have growing up to do. Do we need a government to regulate every aspect of our existence? Personally, I'd rather have them keep their regulations to themselves. They work for me, I'm not their serf.

What do you mean neither side is right?

You have a business, you do your business. You can't get any simpler then that.

I can see we are going to go around in circles here, but at least I'll answer. Should a business owner have to service everyone who walks in, even if it conflicts with their own moral compass And vice versa, should a consumer do business with those they morally object to? Just because I have a business shouldn't mean I have no rights to choose not to support certain things or support other ca uses that my cusomers might not all agree with .


Granted it's a very subjective thing, but I would think there would be some room for choosing to do what your conscience dictates. You truly can't please everyone, at least be true to your personal core beliefs. I don't see why accommodations could be made on both sides. Personally, I would have a hard time supporting a business I find goes against my own moral compass, I think business should have that same ability to support causes they believe in and show their disapproval of those they don't . Again, it is a tough topic, whose rights are more important when facing opposing viewpoints that will hinder both sides? Do my rights as a consumer trump the business owners rights or the other way? Who gets hurt more by that decision?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Annee

Elaborate please. Im not understanding what a secular government has to do with it. Neither side is entirely right, they both have growing up to do. Do we need a government to regulate every aspect of our existence? Personally, I'd rather have them keep their regulations to themselves. They work for me, I'm not their serf.

What do you mean neither side is right?

You have a business, you do your business. You can't get any simpler then that.

I can see we are going to go around in circles here, but at least I'll answer. Should a business owner have to service everyone who walks in, even if it conflicts with their own moral compass And vice versa, should a consumer do business with those they morally object to? Just because I have a business shouldn't mean I have no rights to choose not to support certain things or support other ca uses that my cusomers might not all agree with .


Granted it's a very subjective thing, but I would think there would be some room for choosing to do what your conscience dictates. You truly can't please everyone, at least be true to your personal core beliefs. I don't see why accommodations could be made on both sides. Personally, I would have a hard time supporting a business I find goes against my own moral compass, I think business should have that same ability to support causes they believe in and show their disapproval of those they don't . Again, it is a tough topic, whose rights are more important when facing opposing viewpoints that will hinder both sides? Do my rights as a consumer trump the business owners rights or the other way? Who gets hurt more by that decision?

The only circle is the one you are creating. I was very clear.

I can't stand Dr. Laura, but I did learn something from her --- cut through the crap.

A business is a business. If you serve the public, you serve the public. Very simple.

Right to refuse service is basically about behavior, not who you were born, who you are.

a reply to: pavil

Really we still talking about this (facepalm)

Its simple if you want to serve everybody you open a public business.
If you want to only serve a subsection of society you open a private business.

-----------------

For those who think it is ok for a PUBLIC business to refuse service - how would you feel if muslims/LGBT or whatever subsection you don't want to serve, bought up all the gas stations in your area and then didn't want to serve any christians ?

Or just buy the only ones close to Death valley as an example - oh sorry you are a christian no fuel for you or water/food - guess you'll just have to die here - or of course you could pray.

a reply to: Annee

Christians aren't refusing SERVICE to gays. These people don't wish to contribute to their marriage ceremony via the cake.

I don't see Christians demanding gays contribute to Christian ceremonies.

Look there are valid arguments both ways. There will ALWAYS be grey areas with conflicting moral codes in a pluralistic society. In this case, IMO, getting to a point of threats is past the point of reasonableness.

If this push continues, the backlash will increase. You can bank on that.

Plenty of cake shops around, Muslim, Secular Humanist, Marijuana bake shops...lots of options.

Let the Christians have this one. it's no big deal and I'd rather not see it get to a 'big deal'. That covers my views on it. You see what I'm saying or you don't.

We can agree to disagree. Bye.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

Christians aren't refusing SERVICE to gays. These people don't wish to contribute to their marriage ceremony via the cake.

I don't see Christians demanding gays contribute to Christian ceremonies.

If you do weddings, you do weddings. Period. There is no gray area.

There are many Christians who are gay. What? Someone just stops believing in their God because their gay?

The Fundy Christians are in the minority now. The majority of Christians live in the real world and understand sexual orientation is how a person is born. It is not a chosen sexual deviant.

The baker in Florida who refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it several days ago is also getting death threats so this isn't just a one way street.

I was wondering the other day how many of these "Christian" bakers and florists are refusing to sell to weddings involving heterosexuals getting married again. That practice was specifically defined as adultery by Jesus and the Old Testament punishment for that is also death.

Of course, we won't need the government to regulate that. Nobody baking wedding cakes will be in business for long refusing service to heterosexuals getting remarried.

So, this isn't just about following a traditional interpretation of the Scriptures.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The baker in Florida who refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it several days ago is also getting death threats so this isn't just a one way street.

ALL of these events requesting cakes with anti-gay messages are perpetrated by Right Wing anti-gay activists.

The anti-gay radio host who went after the Florida bakery, doesn't even live in Florida.

a reply to: Annee

The majority of Christians and a lot of non- Christians think homosexuality is nothing more than an impulse driven collection of people who can't ever be satisfied.

If you think the P.C. of it is your proof of the majority opinion, why do you think in state after state after state, the popular vote to define marriage has been a man and a woman?? HELLO? There's your majority. A slam-dunk majority.
A 70-0 football score. That's the reality.

I could care less what one does to enrich his proctologist. His business, not mine. Move into the political arena and claim 'majorities' where no exist and I will move, politically into the other side.

This majority support for gay issues is an outright lie. Any 'gains' have come from a social engineering Judicial branch AND NOT FROM THE PEOPLE.

So, one more time, let it go or go ahead and lock and load...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

This majority support for gay issues is an outright lie. Any 'gains' have come from a social engineering Judicial branch AND NOT FROM THE PEOPLE.

So, one more time, let it go or go ahead and lock and load...

What do you mean by "lock and load?"

The polling doesn't support what you're saying. When you talk about "Christian" opposition to gay marriage what is meant specifically is "white evangelicals." The majority of mainline protestants and Catholics support gay marriage. Nearly a majority of evangelicals under the age of 35 support gay marriage. Public opinion is rapidly changing and that is indicated by all major polling organizations.

www.politico.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

The majority of Christians and a lot of non- Christians think homosexuality is nothing more than an impulse driven collection of people who can't ever be satisfied.

I don't agree with you.

I don't believe most Christians (in America) fall into the category of "Blind Faith".

I believe most Christians (in America) are capable of rational thought and now accept the truth about sexual orientation

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

The majority of Christians and a lot of non- Christians think homosexuality is nothing more than an impulse driven collection of people who can't ever be satisfied.

And what's interesting about that is that the writings of Paul strongly favor the idea of resisting ALL sexual impulse, even heterosexual activity within marriage. You NEVER hear that mentioned as a potential lifestyle for heterosexuals within evangelical or conservative protestant Christianity. Of course, Paul gives an out for heterosexuals who can't control their impulses: he reluctantly says it's OK to marry rather than burn in hell. So why should gays be expected to remain celibate?

a reply to: DelMarvel

It's figurative...LOL. There will be a 'fight'. Hoping it remains rhetorical/political. Although there will be nuts on both sides is my guess...