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

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

CHRISTIANS DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!

Give it a rest.

Lot's of Christians do, though. You may not, but the bible says it's okay to hate homosexuals for they are an abomination unto the lord. I paraphrased that a little. But you get the drift. This is the same bible you probably use. And while many Christians don't hate homosexuals, many do.

You know I see this a lot.

The bibles says it's abomination, but it's not even among the seven deadly sins, NOR is it in the Ten Commandments.

Yet christian shop owners will serve adulterers, people who work on the sabbath (many of the business owners break with rule themselves), people who do not honor their parents, fat people (gluttons, some of whom may be their favorite customers!), the list goes on. Yet somehow it's homosexuality that is this unforgivable thing that people will refuse to serve others for. Someone may call me a hypocrite, but that right there SCREAM hypocrisy to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was referring to Seamrog's comment - not yours.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

Equality is someone being able to purchase a product or service from someone who sells that product or service to everyone else in the general public. If you want to be so discerning in whom you will sell your stuff to, start a private organization.

Right--"comply with what I want or lose your livelihood." Not much of a choice.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Now, here on ATS there are rules of decorum to be followed, of course, but despite my previous warning, I haven't reported you yet because I feel you're free to say whatever you want, regardless of how I take offense to it.

You can't see your personal intolerance of Christians when you call them hateful bigots. You have no problem calling me that, or when others call me that, but you do have a problem when it doesn't suit you.

Congratz*

a reply to: kaylaluv

Sorry my bad. I saw that Annee had recently responded to me about the same topic and I jumped the gun.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Now, here on ATS there are rules of decorum to be followed, of course, but despite my previous warning, I haven't reported you yet because I feel you're free to say whatever you want, regardless of how I take offense to it.

You can't see your personal intolerance of Christians when you call them hateful bigots. You have no problem calling me that, or when others call me that, but you do have a problem when it doesn't suit you.

Congratz*

Not all Christians are hateful bigots though. Only those who don't like homosexuals. Fortunately there is quite a large population of Christians who don't judge homosexuals for being gay and they AREN'T hateful bigots. So, in other words, if the shoe fits...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

Equality is someone being able to purchase a product or service from someone who sells that product or service to everyone else in the general public. If you want to be so discerning in whom you will sell your stuff to, start a private organization.

Right--"comply with what I want or lose your livelihood." Not much of a choice.

What about Bernie Madoff? Should he have lost his livelihood for breaking investment fraud laws? Or should we not have made him comply to those laws put in place to protect people?

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Now, here on ATS there are rules of decorum to be followed, of course, but despite my previous warning, I haven't reported you yet because I feel you're free to say whatever you want, regardless of how I take offense to it.

You can't see your personal intolerance of Christians when you call them hateful bigots. You have no problem calling me that, or when others call me that, but you do have a problem when it doesn't suit you.

Congratz*

Personal intolerance of Christians? I have dozens of Christians who I am honored to call my friend. My own mother is a Christian and I love her dearly. My best friend (Who's name is ironically Christian) is a DEVOUT christian. The ones who I am blessed to call my friend however, practice tolerance when it comes to other people's lives. They live by the teachings of Jesus, and NOT the teachings of Leviticus. I don't even call YOU a hateful bigot except in hypotheticals. I can't know your life and why you choose to say the things you do. I don't know if you're a bigot or not, despite your post history. And I won't pretend to know it either. You're free to say whatever you want. And as I've stated multiple times before, I'll defend your right to say it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

I judge by the number incarcerated and for what they are incarcerated for. I also see that due to an escalation of police tactics for taking down people for certain activities, police mishaps become more and more deadly than they were in the past. Back in the 70's did you ever hear about a police officer flash banging a baby's crib or shooting someone in a house after a no-knock raid when that person tries to defend themselves then blame the victim for it?

To me, a large part of our "police problem" would be fixed if we stop criminalizing victimless behavior.

We do have to be realistic and understand we now have "Instant" news via internet and "instant" photos/videos via cell phones.

I doubt its escalated. Its just more visible.

I agree about 99% on victimless crimes. I am not a soft on crime person.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No prob.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

Equality is someone being able to purchase a product or service from someone who sells that product or service to everyone else in the general public. If you want to be so discerning in whom you will sell your stuff to, start a private organization.

Right--"comply with what I want or lose your livelihood." Not much of a choice.

What about Bernie Madoff? Should he have lost his livelihood for breaking investment fraud laws? Or should we not have made him comply to those laws put in place to protect people?

Now we're comparing apples and kumquats. First of all, Madoff does not have a Constitutional right to defraud people. Secondly, he did actual harm to his fellow citizens by depriving them of their property (money).

Are gay groups attempting to take the right of marriage away from Christians? Are gay groups attempting to legalize discrimination against Christians?

Political Christian groups are actively attacking the rights of gays, not the other way around, nice of Cruz to play the victim card here.

a reply to: Annee

Of course. I do recognize that much of what we see is due to increased reporting measures, that's why I look towards other sources like the national incarceration rate to determine my position here.

Police are humans too. They are fully susceptible to the same shortcomings and failings as anyone else. Naturally there will be the ones who abuse their power. Heck, my uncle was a cop who did just that (he really soured my dad's opinion of police in Maryland just from the stories he told that's for sure). But at the same time, you can't write all the incidents off as just natural police abuse of power. The tools that police have at their disposal to wield over the public have become worse and worse over the years, and much of the reasoning behind it can be traced back to morality laws. Laws which were pushed onto the books by Christians trying to push their idea of morality onto the public at large.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Laws which were pushed onto the books by Christians trying to push their idea of morality onto the public at large.

I'm old ya know

I know those days. I've seen lots of changes. Most for the better IMO.

The "Good Old Days" is more selective memory then good.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

Equality is someone being able to purchase a product or service from someone who sells that product or service to everyone else in the general public. If you want to be so discerning in whom you will sell your stuff to, start a private organization.

Right--"comply with what I want or lose your livelihood." Not much of a choice.

What about Bernie Madoff? Should he have lost his livelihood for breaking investment fraud laws? Or should we not have made him comply to those laws put in place to protect people?

Now we're comparing apples and kumquats. First of all, Madoff does not have a Constitutional right to defraud people. Secondly, he did actual harm to his fellow citizens by depriving them of their property (money).

And where is our constitutional right to discriminate against people? And if someone is at the last gas station before no-man's land, but they happen to be the wrong race, religion or orientation so they don't get to buy gas? Or if someone is traveling in the night with sick kids and needs to stop at the only hotel within 300 miles, but they are the wrong race, religion or orientation? Are they not being harmed?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Are gay groups attempting to take the right of marriage away from Christians? Are gay groups attempting to legalize discrimination against Christians?

Political Christian groups are actively attacking the rights of gays, not the other way around, nice of Cruz to play the victim card here.

The only "right" the gays are trying to take away from Christians is their apparent right to discriminate against gays.

In the future, those of us who consider ourselves to be rather moderate regarding some things will probably be called a bigot by someone in the future as rules of conduct regarding society continues to evolve. That is how societies work. Things progress, and while we're standing on the precipice of true equality for all, there is still work to be done.

a reply to: Annee

Thinking about the Reagan and Nixon years really makes me upset...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

Equality is someone being able to purchase a product or service from someone who sells that product or service to everyone else in the general public. If you want to be so discerning in whom you will sell your stuff to, start a private organization.

Right--"comply with what I want or lose your livelihood." Not much of a choice.

What about Bernie Madoff? Should he have lost his livelihood for breaking investment fraud laws? Or should we not have made him comply to those laws put in place to protect people?

Now we're comparing apples and kumquats. First of all, Madoff does not have a Constitutional right to defraud people. Secondly, he did actual harm to his fellow citizens by depriving them of their property (money).

And where is our constitutional right to discriminate against people? And if someone is at the last gas station before no-man's land, but they happen to be the wrong race, religion or orientation so they don't get to buy gas? Or if someone is traveling in the night with sick kids and needs to stop at the only hotel within 300 miles, but they are the wrong race, religion or orientation? Are they not being harmed?

Again with the reducto ad absurdum. No one has been harmed at all in the manner you described and if they did, they would definitely have grounds for a case, in that the places you mentioned were the sole providers for the area and there was definite and measurable harm done.

One has constitutionally guaranteed rights to property, free association, and religious freedom. Just because you or I may not like what people do with those rights does not invalidate them.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Seamrog


No business owner (and I am one) would enter into a contract without some reasonable understanding of the party involved. If it is obvious that two women, or two men are attempting to have the sacrament of Holy Matrimony conferred upon them, a Roman Catholic is obliges to not participate.

But as a person who caters weddings, you would ask a couple if they had sex before marriage, and did they plan to have kids and what kind of marriage do they plan on having before you agreed to cater it? Seriously? Again, I say that a Roman Catholic apparently can't have a public catering business because it would be too hard to find a couple that would qualify on all counts, or would even be willing to answer such personal questions from a caterer, for God's sake.

Exactly.

How many of these Pharisee bakers are refusing to bake cakes for people involved in second marriages?

That practice is explicitly described by Jesus as adultery for which the OT punishment is death.

There's no need for any regulations about that because nobody baking wedding cakes would be in business for long if they refused to work for people getting remarried. So this ain't just about following the literal letter of the law of the Scriptures.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Wait. So it is only harmful if that is the only business in the area that sells that particular good and service and happens to discriminate against a minority class, but if more than one of those businesses exist, then it is perfectly acceptable? What constitutes the size of an "area" so we can determine when harm through business discrimination is happening?