It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Oh, that part I don't disagree with. it's the infringement part that is slowly rising in temperature.

The Christians, over-all, have been very Christian in their responses. They have bent over backwards. Redefining marriage crossed that line, IMO. It is/was a religious concept and falls into the Ist Amendment arena. Civil unions allowed for an equivalent and if it allowed for the same rights as 'marriage'. then that should have sufficed.

But, oh,no. Not enough.

Rarely is there a huge upset the first time something happens that goes against one beliefs. It's the next time, or the time after that, that the blood-pressure starts going up.

There has to be a balance, between the two belief systems. One cannot continue bending over backwards without a point being reached where in rebounds the other way.

The outpouring of support for the bakery and the pizza outlet is the sign that this trend will not continue. Unfortunately, it will become a national political issue. (There are so many other things that need addressing more than this).

My personal view is let's see a little slack from the Gay activists that have been shown to them. If they don't then they'll lose any sympathy they engendered from me, at least politically.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

When you say that to the Muslim community, then I might believe you. Until then, you sound closer to an activist than a person that has the interests of the nation as a whole.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

When you say that to the Muslim community, then I might believe you. Until then, you sound closer to an activist than a person that has the interests of the nation as a whole.



Another one where Christians can't stand on their own.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

Oh, that part I don't disagree with. it's the infringement part that is slowly rising in temperature.

The Christians, over-all, have been very Christian in their responses. They have bent over backwards. Redefining marriage crossed that line, IMO. It is/was a religious concept and falls into the Ist Amendment arena. Civil unions allowed for an equivalent and if it allowed for the same rights as 'marriage'. then that should have sufficed.


Bullcrap! Marriage was redefined when Christians first let government take over marriage issuing duties and allowing the government to extend benefits to married couples. As soon as that happened, marriage stopped being the property of Christians and became property of the state and the rite stopped being religious and became secular.

Though really, Christians never really owned marriage anyways. They didn't invent it nor are they the only culture that practices it. There is no valid, rational argument that a Christian can make in favor of THEIR definition of marriage being the most correct.

Civil unions are just another example of Segregation. Separate but equal. We all know how THAT turned out.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

That is absolutely correct! That is my concern!

The nuts. Both sides. The vast majority have cut slack for the gay community and have withheld personal misgivings.

This should be a small matter. What a bakery does or doesn't do shouldn't tie up national media and activists for days and weeks.

Let them sue the bakery, if they have a case. Let the ACLU jump into the fray. Let the law decide. Anything else is just activism.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

Oh, that part I don't disagree with. it's the infringement part that is slowly rising in temperature.



Infringement?

You mean on a persons civil rights? The right to be treated equally?


edit on 8-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Let them sue the bakery, if they have a case. Let the ACLU jump into the fray. Let the law decide. Anything else is just activism.



Why not avoid lawsuits and understand as a business you treat every customer equally.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Just how did the Christians 'let' the government take over? Separation of church and state...remember?.

Bullcrap? Right back at you




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Obviously your an activist. I'm on the other hand, am neither gay nor Christian. Can you claim the same?

I'm not changing my point of view and apparently the same for you. (either way, I won't lose any sleep over this, win lose or draw.

I just see Christians have given up more than any other group out there over the years. I say let them sue the shop, pick another shop or don't tell them that the cake is for a gay marriage ceremony. (deliberate baiting?).



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

Obviously your an activist. I'm on the other hand, am neither gay nor Christian. Can you claim the same?



I am neither gay nor Christian.

I support a secular government. 100% separation of church and state.

Our constitution guarantees everyone the right to believe whatever they want. It does not support infringing on the civil rights of other with that personal chosen belief.

A for profit business is not your personal church.
edit on 8-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

I just see Christians have given up more than any other group out there over the years. I say let them sue the shop, pick another shop or don't tell them that the cake is for a gay marriage ceremony. (deliberate baiting?).



No. Christians should never have had the power they've had in this secular government.

They are kicking and screaming because things are being set right.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



Show me a privately owned customer service business located in a public access area that was not required to sign a government business license.

Do you plan on dropping customers in by helicopter, or are you using public road access built by tax money?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Just how did the Christians 'let' the government take over? Separation of church and state...remember?.

Bullcrap? Right back at you



Well since you asked, let's find out. By the way, the answer like many questionable things in America's past involves a good dose of racism.

Taking Marriage Private


The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.



But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.


So basically, a bunch of racists didn't want people interracially marrying and got the government to officially sanction marriages. Then the government, being the government, slowly over more control of marriage until it is what we have today. Ironically, it was the haters of the past that paved the way for the haters of today to have their arguments shutdown as far as marriage equality goes.

So thank your racist forefathers. They made it so that you guys don't have an argument as far as marriage being a sole institution of Christianity.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Just how did the Christians 'let' the government take over? Separation of church and state...remember?.

Bullcrap? Right back at you



So thank your racist forefathers. They made it so that you guys don't have an argument as far as marriage being a sole institution of Christianity.


That's right.

It is a secular government contract.

No God required.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



Show me a privately owned customer service business located in a public access area that was not required to sign a government business license.

Do you plan on dropping customers in by helicopter, or are you using public road access built by tax money?


Many States do not explicitly include LGBT as a proteced group in their laws about discrimination, they could be refused service and it wouldn't be discrimination under the laws of those state. It seems to me that either one one or the other is infringing on the others rights, there needs to be a better way of dealing with these situations. You basically want to FORCE someone to do something they don't feel right about, is that something you are ok with?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



Show me a privately owned customer service business located in a public access area that was not required to sign a government business license.

Do you plan on dropping customers in by helicopter, or are you using public road access built by tax money?


Many States do not explicitly include LGBT as a proteced group in their laws about discrimination, they could be refused service and it wouldn't be discrimination under the laws of those state. It seems to me that either one one or the other is infringing on the others rights, there needs to be a better way of dealing with these situations. You basically want to FORCE someone to do something they don't feel right about, is that something you are ok with?


So, if you don't "feel right" about keeping your restaurant kitchen clean, you shouldn't have to?

We have laws and penalties to protect customers, including discrimination laws. I expect at some point, LGBT will have to be added as a protected group by all states. It's time.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



Show me a privately owned customer service business located in a public access area that was not required to sign a government business license.

Do you plan on dropping customers in by helicopter, or are you using public road access built by tax money?


Many States do not explicitly include LGBT as a proteced group in their laws about discrimination, they could be refused service and it wouldn't be discrimination under the laws of those state. It seems to me that either one one or the other is infringing on the others rights, there needs to be a better way of dealing with these situations. You basically want to FORCE someone to do something they don't feel right about, is that something you are ok with?


So, if you don't "feel right" about keeping your restaurant kitchen clean, you shouldn't have to?

We have laws and penalties to protect customers, including discrimination laws. I expect at some point, LGBT will have to be added as a protected group by all states. It's time.


nice try. There are laws regulating the sanitation of facilities. some states do not include LGBT in their definition of discrimination, therefore its not against the law in those States.. If you don't like the law get the law changed. that's how it works in the society



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Annee

A privately owned business has the right of an individual. Period. A corporation does not.

Just another attempt at dictating/abrogating individual rights. (probably the real agenda behind this overblown case.)



Show me a privately owned customer service business located in a public access area that was not required to sign a government business license.

Do you plan on dropping customers in by helicopter, or are you using public road access built by tax money?


Many States do not explicitly include LGBT as a proteced group in their laws about discrimination, they could be refused service and it wouldn't be discrimination under the laws of those state. It seems to me that either one one or the other is infringing on the others rights, there needs to be a better way of dealing with these situations. You basically want to FORCE someone to do something they don't feel right about, is that something you are ok with?


Why do you think these bible belt type states are trying to pass sneaky religious rights laws?

They're trying to get laws in place prior to Federal laws of marriage and civil rights equality for gays --- so they can use state laws to challenge or override Federal equality laws.

I don't care if the religious feel right about Equal Rights. And yes I support forcing Equal Rights.

No one is stopping religious from believing whatever they want. Believing is one thing. Denying equality because of that belief is another.
edit on 8-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's actually a nice misdirect, but not really germane. The definition of marriage is the core issue.

Pretty hard to blame forefathers for that one. Societies on their way out had plenty of homosexuality. None had raised the bar to 'marriage' like these guys have.

A new level...

Still, I don't care about a 'bakery'.

Once the self-righteous pontificate on what an individually owned business should or shouldn't do, despite 1St amendment rights, the door is now open for even more choices removed under the name of social justice.

The slope will continue...if I have gatherings at my home will I have to prove the 'correct' percentile of visitors via race or sexual preference?

Knock off the personal right, as mandated by law, of an individual business, it will continue.

Don't forget all this started with "the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". The slope has been fast.

My fear and prediction is there will be a backlash...sooner rather than later, unless I miss my guess.




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join