WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

The CDC is investigating its own report - - LGBT count. Because it is so far off from other reports/counts.

People are people - - just because you are LGBT does not mean you are political or even care that you get counted. Some have the attitude it is no one else's business (their right).

Best count anyone is ever going to get is - - - those who choose to self identify.

I look forward to the day when we stop making such counts altogether.

I look forward to the day when we all identify ourselves as Americans again, rather than gay, straight, religious, non-religious, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, butcher, baker or candle-stick maker.

We are AMERICANS. We believe in the Constitution, we believe in the equality of all before the law, we believe in doing the right, ethical and moral thing.

Yeah, it's probably a pipe dream.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

The thing that should worry us the most, is the rhetoric that is coming out from these politicians mouths. How long till someone gets it in their head that the best way to deal with the situation will be with violence? At what point where someone will take these words, so badly chosen by the politicians and preachers and then decides that "for the good of" that it is far better to say shoot, beat, or kill those he suspects or knows happens to be gay, all cause it is in the bible?

As sad as it is, the scary thought is that with all of the people in this country, there are those who believe in having firearms and of those, there are a few tho are in need of mental help. And from that there will be other shootings and more accusations and yet the very thing that set this off, the very people who should take responsibility will not. All to appeal to one small group of people to spur on fear.

Ted Cruz, did not create the situation, it has always been, there, the saddest thing of all is that he is exploiting it, and using it to gain political points with the base. And as popular as he may be, it may come down to a few people getting killed and his political carreer will be over, while those who use such will quickly quiet up, and others who will celebrate both publically and silently.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

...they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

More tolerance from the loving left.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

...they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

More tolerance from the loving left.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Because if it is, it makes you look silly since what ScientificRailgun just said was an extension of the rights afforded by the 1st amendment and has no baring on the policies or feelings of the left. That is unless you consider the 1st amendment a left wing policy.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

...they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

More tolerance from the loving left.

Actually, I know leftists who think the WBC should be shutdown because of their hate speech. But see, I actually follow the constitution. I don't agree with one little iota of what the WBC has to say, but they are free under the U.S. Constitution to say it.

Though I did chuckle when you call me "left". Thanks for that. I guess being a centrist makes me a dirty liberal in some people's eyes.

a reply to: Seamrog

You know, if you had any justification for cherry picking your old testament rules you could have just presented it instead of resorting to the ad hominem.

Weird.

And so it begins.

I wouldn't mind having a conservative in the white house, but...as Cruz is, they're all catering to the far right evangelical religious nuts.

Moderates, who are in the middle, politically, favor gay rights and don't like discrimination against any subset of the American people. Why does that matter?

Because moderates generally swing elections. They're the ones who aren't brainwashed by the right and left propaganda machine. All Hillary needs to do, is appeal to these moderates, by...wait for it....
by...NOT Being a lunatic. The presidency is hers.

That's what you want America. Blah

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Though I did chuckle when you call me "left". Thanks for that. I guess being a centrist makes me a dirty liberal in some people's eyes.

Ah, cool. Another Centrist.

When it comes to Extremists - - really doesn't matter what label they choose for themselves.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Ted Cruz to boring old me seems mentally unstable.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Why not? People have the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to own property. If one does not feel right in participating in or supporting a gay wedding, or a klan rally, or an NRA convention, why should the state force them to?

The way I see it, in a free society sometimes we have to tolerate behaviors we find distasteful in order to maintain a free society.

Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this".

But that is exactly what people want to use the coercive force of government to do.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

But see, I actually follow the constitution. I don't agree with one little iota of what the WBC has to say, but they are free under the U.S. Constitution to say it.

That's well and good, but it remains in your mind that Christians should be forced to do business under morally objectionable circumstances.

Those that won't are hateful bigots. Extremist, hateful bigots.

And you most definitely are a misguided leftist.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Why not? People have the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to own property. If one does not feel right in participating in or supporting a gay wedding, or a klan rally, or an NRA convention, why should the state force them to?

The way I see it, in a free society sometimes we have to tolerate behaviors we find distasteful in order to maintain a free society.

People are Free to open a business and follow the rules of Civil Equality.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

But see, I actually follow the constitution. I don't agree with one little iota of what the WBC has to say, but they are free under the U.S. Constitution to say it.

That's well and good, but it remains in your mind that Christians should be forced to do business under morally objectionable circumstances.

No Christian is forced to open a business.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Why not? People have the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to own property. If one does not feel right in participating in or supporting a gay wedding, or a klan rally, or an NRA convention, why should the state force them to?

The way I see it, in a free society sometimes we have to tolerate behaviors we find distasteful in order to maintain a free society.

The law is: If you own a business that serves the public, you are not allowed to discriminate. Freedom of expression is fine, but that freedom does not give you authority to discriminate.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Why not? People have the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to own property. If one does not feel right in participating in or supporting a gay wedding, or a klan rally, or an NRA convention, why should the state force them to?

The way I see it, in a free society sometimes we have to tolerate behaviors we find distasteful in order to maintain a free society.

The law is: If you own a business that serves the public, you are not allowed to discriminate. Freedom of expression is fine, but that freedom does not give you authority to discriminate.

So if the law said you couldn't say certain things, you'd be okay with that since that's the law?

A Jewish person should be forced to service a Klan rally?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Seamrog
Are you familliar with WBC, sounds like you are describing them?..the epitome of uglyness and hate.

Yet you would agree that the government should not forbid them to speak, yes?

So long as they do not actively advocate for violence against those they protest about, they should be free to spew whatever hate they please.

Right, because we recognize that the freedom of speech is essential to a free society, no matter how distasteful we may find some examples of it.

100% agreed. People should be free to say whatever they please. However, even if (to use the wedding example again) a business doesn't agree with a gay couple getting married, they cannot refuse service for that reason. Of course, during the business transaction they are by all means allowed to say "I don't agree with this". And nobody can stop that.

Why not? People have the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to own property. If one does not feel right in participating in or supporting a gay wedding, or a klan rally, or an NRA convention, why should the state force them to?

The way I see it, in a free society sometimes we have to tolerate behaviors we find distasteful in order to maintain a free society.

The law is: If you own a business that serves the public, you are not allowed to discriminate. Freedom of expression is fine, but that freedom does not give you authority to discriminate.

And, no one is forced to open a business.

You choose to open a business, you choose to agree with Civil Equality.