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.

 

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

page: 14
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?


The law can't say that because it violates the 1st amendment. It is a poor example and would never become a law in this country (too many are on the lookout for such laws coming down the pipeline to allow something like that being passed in this day and age).




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

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.

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

And you most definitely are a misguided leftist.
Yes, those that refuse to serve someone based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is engaging in discrimination.

Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. It's that simple. You're letting your personal feeling on the matter of homosexuality define how YOU interpret the law, when it's perfectly clear. You are free to practice your religion however you choose, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?


If their normal business provides for rallys - - Yes.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?


The law can't say that because it violates the 1st amendment. It is a poor example and would never become a law in this country (too many are on the lookout for such laws coming down the pipeline to allow something like that being passed in this day and age).


That's not the point. The point is, if it was the law, would one agree with it just because it's the law.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

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.

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

And you most definitely are a misguided leftist.
Yes, those that refuse to serve someone based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is engaging in discrimination.

Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. It's that simple. You're letting your personal feeling on the matter of homosexuality define how YOU interpret the law, when it's perfectly clear. You are free to practice your religion however you choose, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.


How does someone have the right to have someone else serve them?


The way I see it, if the rights of two citizens come into conflict, they should go into neutral corners.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?
If the Jewish person ran a deli and a KKK person wanted them to cater a KKK event, the Jewish businessman cannot discriminate against the KKK and refuse to cater the event. The Jewish businessman serves the public.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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: 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?
If the Jewish person ran a deli and a KKK person wanted them to cater a KKK event, the Jewish businessman cannot discriminate against the KKK and refuse to cater the event. The Jewish businessman serves the public.


See, I just can't help but disagree with that concept. The Jewish man should be able to refuse to support a Klan rally. It's one thing if he refused to serve white Anglo Saxon protestants in his deli, sure, but he should have every right to refuse to support the action of a Klan rally. He's refusing to support a behavior--an event, because he finds it morally reprehensible, not people because of their color.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Should?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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: 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?
If the Jewish person ran a deli and a KKK person wanted them to cater a KKK event, the Jewish businessman cannot discriminate against the KKK and refuse to cater the event. The Jewish businessman serves the public.


See, I just can't help but disagree with that concept. The Jewish man should be able to refuse to support a Klan rally. It's one thing if he refused to serve white Anglo Saxon protestants in his deli, sure, but he should have every right to refuse to support the action of a Klan rally. He's refusing to support a behavior--an event, because he finds it morally reprehensible, not people because of their color.

But that sets a dangerous precedent. I could, by those rules, refuse to serve someone Christian because I find their beliefs regarding homosexuality morally reprehensible.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

There are tricky little ways around issues like that. The Jewish deli owner could simply say he doesn't have the capacity to serve an event that large and suggest a larger deli down the street. It would be pretty difficult for the KKK people to prove that the Jewish deli owner didn't have the capacity to serve them, and it would be a long and expensive legal battle not worth fighting.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why would anyone take such a common sense approach like that ?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc


How does someone have the right to have someone else serve them?





***SNIP***

Whether you want to or not, you will be MADE TO CARE. You will be MADE TO OBEY.

I don't think there is any just anti-discrimination law.

Leftists want the government to do their dirty work for them.....







....when it suits them.
edit on 4/13/2015 by Blaine91555 because: Snipped for Manners violation.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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: 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?
If the Jewish person ran a deli and a KKK person wanted them to cater a KKK event, the Jewish businessman cannot discriminate against the KKK and refuse to cater the event. The Jewish businessman serves the public.


See, I just can't help but disagree with that concept. The Jewish man should be able to refuse to support a Klan rally. It's one thing if he refused to serve white Anglo Saxon protestants in his deli, sure, but he should have every right to refuse to support the action of a Klan rally. He's refusing to support a behavior--an event, because he finds it morally reprehensible, not people because of their color.

But that sets a dangerous precedent. I could, by those rules, refuse to serve someone Christian because I find their beliefs regarding homosexuality morally reprehensible.


Sure, why not? Although to be consistent with the concept I posted it would be refusing to cater a Bible Thumper anti-gay rally as that action--that event--was what you had a problem with.

As lesbian business owner Courtney Hoffman said when asked why she donated to that Pizza shop gofundme site:





Hoffman further explained why she offered her donation and apology to a Christian family that doesn't agree with her lesbian lifestyle in a Monday interview on the "The Jeff Adams Show."

She explained that even though the O'Connors hold a different worldview than she does, she knows that as a small business owner, there are certain events that she does not want her business to take part in and should have the right to refuse offering service in those situations.

"My girlfriend and I are small business owners and we think that there is a difference between operating in a public marketspace and then attaching the name of your business to a private event," Hoffman, who runs a kettle corn stand for various festivals and carnivals, explained. "If we were asked to set up an event at an anti-gay marriage rally, we would have to decline."

She added that forcing businesses to provide services for private events that they don't believe to be morally right, is wrong.

"We just feel like that is our right to decide what events our business associated with and we feel that the right to chose what private events you associate your business with is a right that should be extended to everyone, even people we don't agree with," Hoffman asserted. "That is just kind of how freedom works. That's really what got us talking about the pizzeria was thinking about this from business owner to business owner."



She gets it. She understands that in supporting their right to choose, she is also supporting her own right to choose.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Seamrog

Fine, then don't have a business that has anything to do with weddings and you won't have to deal with it. Your choice.


Don't you just find the concept that a person must bow to the will of others under force of government or lose their livelihood a teeny bit concerning? Just a little bit?


Do I find it concerning that people have to follow our laws? No.
Do I find it concerning that people have the freedom to pick and choose the businesses they will own, depending on what they want to do and who they want to work with? No.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: NavyDoc

There are tricky little ways around issues like that. The Jewish deli owner could simply say he doesn't have the capacity to serve an event that large and suggest a larger deli down the street. It would be pretty difficult for the KKK people to prove that the Jewish deli owner didn't have the capacity to serve them, and it would be a long and expensive legal battle not worth fighting.


You'd be surprised what activists will do. The problem with codifying such things is that any refusal could be taken to court. The Jewish man might really not have the capability to provide the service but is refusal could be taken as "discrimination" then it's off to court you go. There is a whole cottage industry right now that revolves around discrimination cases. That's how Jesse Jackson gets his extortion in. Lawyers actively look around for cases to prosecute.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Seamrog

Fine, then don't have a business that has anything to do with weddings and you won't have to deal with it. Your choice.


Don't you just find the concept that a person must bow to the will of others under force of government or lose their livelihood a teeny bit concerning? Just a little bit?


Do I find it concerning that people have to follow our laws? No.
Do I find it concerning that people have the freedom to pick and choose the businesses they will own, depending on what they want to do and who they want to work with? No.


So someone should lose their livelihood just because they won't kowtow to the social justice warriors?

What you are saying is very much like you have the freedom to read books as long as I pick the right books. If I don't want to choose the books I am allowed to, I can always simply not read.
edit on 13-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: NavyDoc


How does someone have the right to have someone else serve them?





This is why SR is a good little leftist.


It's comments like this, presenting an either/or possibility of political leanings, that make talking to types like you about politics annoying. You are so shortsighted that if someone disagrees with you then they MUST be a leftist, progressive swine. You have no room in your head for any other possibilities because you are too narrow thinking.

I'd like to say it's just the right wing types that do this, but I was stereotyped as a conservative recently for saying a few conservative points to a left wing person. So clearly all sides are guilty of this, but one thing is for sure we all could do without such simple thinking.
edit on 13-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly - homosexualist tyranny.

OP - be sure to ignore this response.


Well, my friend, the pendulum is swinging. America has been under a Christian tyranny for many, many years.


And if it swings back? Would you then be okay with the government forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do? That's the problem--the pendulum always swings the other way and if we are always just using it to get some sort of "payback" we never get anywhere.


I think overall, we are evolving away from antiquated Christian conservatism. Christian conservatives are in the minority, and subsequent generations are becoming more and more moderate. A thousand years from now - maybe Christians (or some other conservative religious group) will be in control again. But I am worried about now - not a thousand years from now.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: NavyDoc


How does someone have the right to have someone else serve them?





This is why SR is a good little leftist.

Whether you want to or not, you will be MADE TO CARE. You will be MADE TO OBEY.

I don't think there is any just anti-discrimination law.

Leftists want the government to do their dirty work for them.....







....when it suits them.
If you call me a leftist again, I'll report you. I find the term insulting. Thank you.

And when it suits me? Did I not just say that the Jewish Deli Owner would be legally obligated to cater the KKK rally? I completely disagree with everything the KKK stands for, but I'd defend them in a hot minute if someone discriminated against them. You say there is not a single just anti-discrimination law.

So you believe any shop owner can refuse to serve blacks because they're black?
You believe job postings can come with the footnote "No Irish Need Apply"?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly - homosexualist tyranny.

OP - be sure to ignore this response.


Well, my friend, the pendulum is swinging. America has been under a Christian tyranny for many, many years.


And if it swings back? Would you then be okay with the government forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do? That's the problem--the pendulum always swings the other way and if we are always just using it to get some sort of "payback" we never get anywhere.


I think overall, we are evolving away from antiquated Christian conservatism. Christian conservatives are in the minority, and subsequent generations are becoming more and more moderate. A thousand years from now - maybe Christians (or some other conservative religious group) will be in control again. But I am worried about now - not a thousand years from now.


You may be correct, you may not be correct. Modern technology causes societal changes to come much more rapidly than they did before. Why do the same thing to other people that you say you hate being done to yourself just because you are not afraid of the pendulum swinging back for a thousand years? Sounds like you just want payback because you are not afraid of it coming back at you--that's not very tolerant or open minded.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join