Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

a reply to: Gryphon66

No I think your criticism was fairly apt, as far as criticisms of Christianity go.

As far as bashing goes, true, I may have mistook your criticisms as intended to incense Christians, but then I realized your were preaching to the choir, kind of like some good ol' boys sitting around a fire razzing people who aren't like them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

No I think your criticism was fairly apt, as far as criticisms of Christianity go.

As far as bashing goes, true, I may have mistook your criticisms as intended to incense Christians, but then I realized your were preaching to the choir, kind of like some good ol' boys sitting around a fire razzing people who aren't like them.

Apparently not merely preaching to the choir, as at least as many (including you) have arisen to combat any so-called bashing.

Since you obviously view yourself as a more fair-minded person than anyone who would stoop to "bashing" the poor, maligned, overwhelming Christian majority in this country ... isn't your own critique of that group you perceive as uniformly attacking a bit ... hypocritical? I mean, you're pointing a judgmental finger at us for pointing a judgmental finger at the Christians ... no?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Regarding refusal of care for health care providers they are bumping heads with federal law. I hope they get a reality check in a big way.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Regarding refusal of care for health care providers they are bumping heads with federal law. I hope they get a reality check in a big way.

Not to mention, the American Medical Association.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I'm going to say something radical.

I'm for freedom.

Not freedom "except." Not freedom "...but."

FREEDOM.

I'm tired of watching Liberals and Conservatives argue over gay marriage, guns, abortion, etc. At the same time these groups throw the word "freedom" around or they call the USA "land of the free" while advocating for taking rights away from another group of people.

First, if you want freedom you have to advocate for all freedoms. NO IFs, ANDs, or BUTs. If you use the word "freedom" and advocate taking away the rights of someone else you are an idiot, plain and simple. Worse you are opening the doors for someone to take your rights away when it's their turn.

So, my advice to anyone - gay, straight, pro choice, pro life, anti-gun, or pro-gun, etc. - stop advocating for someone else's rights be taken away or diminished.

originally posted by: Tjoran
Can't wait until Florida is underwater. Hope it's quick so they don't have a chance to spread to the rest of the states like a bad herpes outbreak.

Yeah! Lets kill 15 million people because I don't agree with a law they proposed! Stupid bigots! The lot of them!

a reply to: WCmutant

It's not so simple. Political arguments about freedom are restructured and argued in a way where one side suggests that the other side getting more freedoms is inhibiting on their own freedoms and vice versa. So one has to wade through the rhetoric to see which side is TRULY on the side of freedom for that issue.

PS: The existence of a government guarantees that no one is ever truly free. There will always be restrictions placed on the populace to maintain a working society.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I don't see what's wrong with this. If an institution wants to deny business based on their morals they should have that right. Someone else will gain business from it anyways. I'm sure there are plenty of bake shops that will make a cake for a gay couple.

Besides, are you suggesting to force people to do things that they are morally against? Seems barbaric and oppressive to me. If someone was to deny me service because of their morals, I'd just go somewhere else and be happy to give my money to a business that won't.



Ghost

I think it's absolutely 100% right, to force people to do things they are morally opposed to. I'd cite some, but it would be too easy, and you appear to be smart enough to figure it out for yourself.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: olaru12

Quite so...and why do you think that is? Could it be that they see the spiritual arrogance and hypocrisy of their former religious affiliations.

You tell me.

I always figured it was just the narcissism of small differences.

You just proved my point....

It's this arrogant, "holier than thou" attitude that drove me away from the church in the first place.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: grandmakdw
to quote biblical morals;
"do not" kill - how passe and barbaric
"do not" steal - get real so last season and barbaric
honor your parents - really!!! that is extremely barbaric
..........................and beyond anything any reasonable person would do
"do not" lie - come on our politicians have taught us
.............. that to lie is to gain power,
...............really barbaric to suggest we should not lie

Kill people who don't listen to Priests. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Kill witches. (Exodus 22:17)
Kill fortunetellers. (Leviticus 20:27)
Kill homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13)
Kill nonbelievers. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Kill followers of other religions. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
Kill false prophets. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, 18:20-22, Zechariah 13:3)
Kill an entire town if anyone there worships another God. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Kill people working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:12-15)
Kill sons of sinners. (Isaiah 14:21)
Kill in the name of the Lord. (Jeremiah 48:10)

Death for striking parents. (Exodus 21:15)
Death for cursing parents. (Leviticus 20:9, Proverbs 20:20)
Death for fornication. (Leviticus 21:9)
Death for adultery. (Leviticus 20:10)
Death for blasphemy. (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Death to followers of other religions. (Exodus 22:19)

God's Willingness to Lie

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." Ezekiel 14:9

"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1st Kings 22:23

And again in 2nd Chronicles 18:22:

"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

For more of the less positive moral aspects of scripture:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

When it comes to Christians, remember
all the old testament scriptures you twisted
are swept away by the words of Jesus.
Jesus command sweeps away the Old Testament,
and the New Testament superscedes the Old.

Jesus said for Christians to love, so for Christians
you need to replace the world love for kill, etc
in all of your passages. Because Jesus did away
with the ugliness you say we think, and put
love in it's place. That was His command.
Find where Jesus said or did anything that
would support your little rant and that
Christ followers should do any of the above
and you will have credibility.
The actual words of Jesus or actions of Jesus.
That is who Christians follow. Jesus. who
swept away the old and brought in the new,
love. Not the words of Paul or others, but
the actual words of Jesus and/or His actual
actions.

Otherwise, this is a typical response of a paranoid delusional
anti-theist when it comes to Christians.

Wooooo watch out the
Christian boogie man cometh!
Lock the doors, pull the shades
or a Christian might get you.
BOO

That is why your paraphrase of old testament
passages are so twisted and distorted of their
meaning for the majority of them.
The product of a bigoted, prejudiced,
intolerant anti-theist mind who projects
their own hatred into the passages, and projecting
these onto Christians, when Christ said to substitute
love for hate and told His followers to do the same.

You also forget Jesus never said any of those things
he ate with prostitutes, people who stole, outcasts
of society and told his followers to love everyone.
Not to kill. So find a passage where Jesus said any of
these things you are so gleeful and took such rage filled
time to find and I might find you not full of anger
rage and hate and paranoid delusion when it comes
to Christians.


People need to be free to not believe
and to believe
in the US.
People need to be free to not practice religion
or to practice religion,
that is in our constitution.

Of course, the anti-theist paranoid delusional
movement doesn't believe the constitution
applies to people of faith.
Tolerance only goes one way as an anti-theist
tolerant toward all who renounce religion,
intolerance for those who wish to practice
religion.

That's what this entire thread is really about.

Not the bill itself
but freedom from the oppressive
and intolerant anti-theist who does not want
to allow people to practice their faith outside
of their homes and the shades must be drawn,
or outside of their places of worship and
they must sneak in and not let anyone know
they are there. That is the anti-theist version
of freedom of religion, that is why such
irrational fear and intolerance of a bill that
tries to protect that freedom.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Man, I'm about as homophobic as Little Richard is straight (which is to say, not at all), but I'm also very pro-freedom of private individuals, both the lives that they lead and the companies that they may choose to build and manage.

With that said, I think that publicly funded entities and companies--even those that take one dime of specific government assistance, to include loans subsidized by the government--can not discriminate in any way against anyone. BUT, if someone builds their company with their own money or private funds, they should be able to decide what they want to do with that business, even if that includes not catering gay weddings because of whatever bias they hold, or only catering to women and not men (I'm looking at you, Curves), or whatever the case may be.

It's a difficult and fine line to draw, because while we are guaranteed personal liberties and freedoms per the constitution, none of that states that we have a natural right to shop everywhere, or not be offended by someone's beliefs. But when it comes down to it, I think that most businesses who would have such an openly offensive and bigoted business model would eventually fail in modern times, and that's better than relying on a heavy-handed government to force people to do things with their own private property that they may not want to do.

But I know that reality differs from my beliefs sometimes, and that's life--as it is life when the tables are turned.

Hallelujah, a reasonable response! If businesses want to deny themselves access to the wealth owned by homosexuals, then let them, they are only disadvantaging themselves. There are very, very few cases where that business is the ONLY ONE accessible to homosexuals in the area. The case in Colorado? It was a suburb of Denver. Unless I've missed something, I'm sure a city or area that large doesn't have a shortage of bakeries. Why should these bakers be forced to make that cake when it is extremely likely there is a baker that is even closer to the gay couples? (Or a comparably distanced one)

I have nothing against homosexuals, I lived with a Gay guy for about a year, I'm also not religious in any way, but I am sick and tired of hearing all of this oppression claimage of super loud minorities within the LGBTQ Blah blah blah itself that are trying to incite the people who have arbitrarily (by the LGBT proponents themselves mind you, "Are you gay?" Homosexual: "Yes", LGBT crowd: "Then you fall under my banner") been lumped together.

Change is a slow thing. Even 20 years ago Gay rights were nowhere near what they are today, and those inciting the gay community have now went above and beyond the threshold necessary for change. It is because they have went beyond simply fighting for rights to actively demonizing there is backlash such as this law. The more LGBT calls for special protections, the more resistant people are going to be, because they are going to feel they are being told what they can and cannot do. Every time LGBT calls for laws protecting them, they create new enemies. People who were otherwise neutral who now defend themselves against a broad, baseless, accusation levelled against them by the LGBT community, "There are no laws protecting me, so YOU (innocent shop owner) are going to discriminate against me"

It is pretty much a socially ostracisable offence to even speak a personal opinion against homosexuals, today (when again, even 20 years ago the opposite was more the norm) and they are also protected against criminal offences by Hate Crime laws. But now the only thing left to do is force acceptance down everyone's throat right now, instead of letting them take it one bite at a time. I don't know about you, but when I've choked on food, sometimes I lose my appetite. IIf you would just let change happen instead of forcing it because you don't have any real problems in life, it would go a lot smoother, and there would be less backlash. You're also going to have to accept the fact that for the forseeable future, (IE even the next hundred years), there are going to be people who simply don't accept LGBT, it's your responsibility to not freak out because of it. Don't worry, they are harmless.

I remember back in college a girl got raped. At the ER they gave her a script for the morning after pill. The CLERK at the pharmacy refused to fill the prescription because it was against his religious beliefs (religious pro-"life").

F*ck these jokers. Now they're trying to pass legislation to support this nonsense? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

a reply to: chuck258

Taking your business to a different bakery is one thing. What are your thoughts regarding denying adoption? Or denying MEDICAL TREATMENT based on religious based bias?

a reply to: chuck258

I note the standard "I know a gay guy so I'm not homophobic" opener in your post here.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class of citizen. That is actually one of the things that the GLBTQ+ lobbies want to achieve that you are labeling as "special protections". What conservatives view homosexuals as getting "special protections" is really homosexuals seeking to have the SAME protections as everyone else. Homosexuals aren't looking to be MORE equal than everyone else, they just want the equality. Right now they are less equal and whenever they attempt to rectify it bills like this are passed and defended by people like you arguing that homosexuals are inhibiting YOUR rights. So does that mean that the status quo of homosexuals being lesser in the eyes of the government is considered "equal" to you?

I mean look at the gay marriage issue. Instead of celebrating and accepting that gays should be able to marry like anyone else, Christians everywhere fought VISCOUSLY about making sure that marriage can only apply to what they want. THEN they act like their rights are being trampled when everyone tells them that isn't how things are supposed to work. Since when is extending a right that everyone else has to a group of people violating another group's rights? That's the dumbest rhetoric I've ever heard.

Do you realize that if homosexuals were ACTUALLY a protected class of citizens that a bill like this would actually be illegal?

One last thing, this bill is Segregation. Just because there may be very few businesses that actually refuse to cater to homosexuals doesn't make it ok. Things could always get worse. It took 100 years or so to get Segregation overturned. You are arguing to replant the roots of it after we worked SOOOO hard to remove them for racial reasons.

originally posted by: chuck258
The more LGBT calls for special protections, the more resistant people are going to be, because they are going to feel they are being told what they can and cannot do.

What "special protections" are LGBT calling for? What "special protections" have they called for in the past? And finally, how do you feel about the actual special protections that religious people GET in this country, like the ability turn people away, because one is "religious"?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
When it comes to Christians, remember
all the old testament scriptures you twisted
are swept away by the words of Jesus.
Jesus command sweeps away the Old Testament,
and the New Testament superscedes the Old.

Jesus said for Christians to love, so for Christians
you need to replace the world love for kill, etc
in all of your passages. Because Jesus did away
with the ugliness you say we think, and put
love in it's place. That was His command.
Find where Jesus said or did anything that
would support your little rant and that
Christ followers should do any of the above
and you will have credibility.
The actual words of Jesus or actions of Jesus.
That is who Christians follow. Jesus. who
swept away the old and brought in the new,
love. Not the words of Paul or others, but
the actual words of Jesus and/or His actual
actions.

Otherwise, this is a typical response of a paranoid delusional
anti-theist when it comes to Christians.

Wooooo watch out the
Christian boogie man cometh!
Lock the doors, pull the shades
or a Christian might get you.
BOO

That is why your paraphrase of old testament
passages are so twisted and distorted of their
meaning for the majority of them.
The product of a bigoted, prejudiced,
intolerant anti-theist mind who projects
their own hatred into the passages, and projecting
these onto Christians, when Christ said to substitute
love for hate and told His followers to do the same.

You also forget Jesus never said any of those things
he ate with prostitutes, people who stole, outcasts
of society and told his followers to love everyone.
Not to kill. So find a passage where Jesus said any of
these things you are so gleeful and took such rage filled
time to find and I might find you not full of anger
rage and hate and paranoid delusion when it comes
to Christians.


People need to be free to not believe
and to believe
in the US.
People need to be free to not practice religion
or to practice religion,
that is in our constitution.

Of course, the anti-theist paranoid delusional
movement doesn't believe the constitution
applies to people of faith.
Tolerance only goes one way as an anti-theist
tolerant toward all who renounce religion,
intolerance for those who wish to practice
religion.

That's what this entire thread is really about.

Not the bill itself
but freedom from the oppressive
and intolerant anti-theist who does not want
to allow people to practice their faith outside
of their homes and the shades must be drawn,
or outside of their places of worship and
they must sneak in and not let anyone know
they are there. That is the anti-theist version
of freedom of religion, that is why such
irrational fear and intolerance of a bill that
tries to protect that freedom.

So in one breath you admit that Jesus Christ taught love and tolerance, that he associated with the less savory and loved them just as much as his apostles.
Then in the next breath you somehow use this to justify denying other human beings. Not just services- such as a wedding cake- but the adoption of children and the receipt of needed medical treatment.

I'm not the anti-theist boogey man. I embrace all religions, all my fellow humans. I've read the words of Jesus. It truly saddens me when people use his teachings to justify the shunning, the scorn and the discrimination against others. I can just picture a tear streaking down his cheek in response to this hatefulness.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Right! "Don't fire me from my employment for no other reason but because I happen to love someone of the same gender as myself." Wah wah...special treatment. *eye roll*

a reply to: grandmakdw

So please tell me why this bill has been brought forth. Is it because Christians don't want to do business with gays or any "gay behavior"? Why is that, when Jesus didn't say anything against gays? Why would Christian's religious views preclude them from doing business with gays? Why would there be a law to allow people to follow a religious view that doesn't even exist, according to Jesus?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Refusing others based on your religion is not practicing it, it is forcing it on others. Your rights end where mine begin, don't like it? Get out of the public sector. I would be willing to bet they don't mind taking the help of the tax payer for thier business without caring where that money comes from.
You practice it at home or in your place of worship.

Oh and save the "the OT doesn't apply to Christians" you guys follow the 10 commandments right? Isn't that part of the US is a Christian nation argument, that our laws are based on those commandments?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
When it comes to Christians, remember
all the old testament scriptures you twisted
are swept away by the words of Jesus.
Jesus command sweeps away the Old Testament,
and the New Testament superscedes the Old.

Actually, I didn't twist anything.

I am complete aware that some Christians are of the opinion the command of Jesus "sweeps away the Old Testament". There are some Christians who don't interpret things that way. Opinions vary, as is to be expected. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about it because it's irrelevant to me.

Jesus said for Christians to love, so for Christians
you need to replace the world love for kill, etc
in all of your passages. Because Jesus did away
with the ugliness you say we think, and put
love in it's place.

In my original post, I never said those things are what Christians think. In my above statement, I make clear that I know not all Christians believe those nasty things from the Old Testament are to be adhered to. Still, it doesn't change the fact that some do. You shouldn't broad brush all Christians as loving, caring individuals.

That was His command.
Find where Jesus said or did anything that
would support your little rant and that
Christ followers should do any of the above
and you will have credibility.
The actual words of Jesus or actions of Jesus.
That is who Christians follow. Jesus. who
swept away the old and brought in the new,
love. Not the words of Paul or others, but
the actual words of Jesus and/or His actual
actions.

How about when he crafted a scourge and went into the temple and threw a tantrum?

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." John 2:13-16 (KJV)



I understand that Jesus said many good things too. I am not denying that a positive message can be taken away from scripture. What I am saying is that there are some pretty nasty things in scripture. And it's not fair to ignore it or sugarcoat it. I prefer looking at the narrative as a whole, instead of isolating the good bits.

Otherwise, this is a typical response of a paranoid delusional
anti-theist when it comes to Christians.

Wooooo watch out the
Christian boogie man cometh!
Lock the doors, pull the shades
or a Christian might get you.
BOO

Actually I'm not remotely paranoid about Christians. Sorry, but I won't be feeding what I perceive as a persecution complex in you.

That is why your paraphrase of old testament
passages are so twisted and distorted of their
meaning for the majority of them.
The product of a bigoted, prejudiced,
intolerant anti-theist mind who projects
their own hatred into the passages, and projecting
these onto Christians, when Christ said to substitute
love for hate and told His followers to do the same.

I made a list, and cited the verses those commands could be found. It was not meant to appear paraphrased. Sorry for the confusion there. I also did not twist anything, or distort anything.

I said above I like to look at the whole narrative. It doesn't really matter to me that Jesus may or may not have done away with the undeniably abhorrent commands of the Old Testament. The fact that God ever had such commands and positions is disgusting enough. A lot of Christians like to rave about how God is all about love and mercy. Tell me about how loving and caring Jesus is until you're blue in the face! I'll tell you how his dad ordered genocides and slavery. I'll remind you of the bloodshed to come. Sure, Jesus said and did a lot of good things. I am not denying that whatsoever. He also never bothered to step in and say something when his dad (or him depending on your interpretation) was throwing tantrums. Has he not always been at the right hand side of God? Sounds like he was complicit. Either way.. Consider the narrative of Christianity and the character of God as a whole, and maybe you will start to see how #ed up it is.

You also forget Jesus never said any of those things
he ate with prostitutes, people who stole, outcasts
of society and told his followers to love everyone.
Not to kill. So find a passage where Jesus said any of
these things

I never said Jesus said any of those things. But I will direct you to the paragraph above.

you are so gleeful and took such rage filled
time to find and I might find you not full of anger
rage and hate and paranoid delusion when it comes
to Christians.

As I said, I am not paranoid or delusional when it comes to Christians. I don't broad brush them all as fire and brimstone fanatics. I'm not worried that my heathen ass is going to be stoned, or any such nonsense. I am absolutely acutely aware that some Christians are crazy fire and brimstone fundamentalists. There are some Christians who believe those commands from the Old Testament still apply. I've had them tell me themselves. Grandma, I know you hate being broad brushed. You must stop broad brushing all Christians as peaceful turn the other cheek people. Not all of them are like that.

And why are they not like that? Because the ugly nasty # that is in the Bible leaves the door open for such ideologies to form. And God sets a great example. As well as mixed messages.

People need to be free to not believe
and to believe
in the US.
People need to be free to not practice religion
or to practice religion,
that is in our constitution.

Of course, the anti-theist paranoid delusional
movement doesn't believe the constitution
applies to people of faith.
Tolerance only goes one way as an anti-theist
tolerant toward all who renounce religion,
intolerance for those who wish to practice
religion.

That's what this entire thread is really about.

Not the bill itself
but freedom from the oppressive
and intolerant anti-theist who does not want
to allow people to practice their faith outside
of their homes and the shades must be drawn,
or outside of their places of worship and
they must sneak in and not let anyone know
they are there. That is the anti-theist version
of freedom of religion, that is why such
irrational fear and intolerance of a bill that
tries to protect that freedom.

You're the one that sounds paranoid...