After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


One of these things is not like the other.

Says the guy who's comparing not taking part in an event with mass murdering 50 people.

Ah there's the feigned outrage. The issue at large is since America is a 'christian country', and this man was American, he was likely more influenced by the mainstream religions of America in his line of thinking.

HE WAS A MUSLIM!

And since they heavily discriminate and act intolerant of LGBT, well, you see where I'm going.

Right because his mosque preached death to gay people. A mosque is where Muslim go to pray.

I'm not anti-christian or anti religion, I'm anti bigotry.

No you're not. You're fine with bigotry as long as it's directed towards a group you don't like, be it Americans or Christians or right wingers. A Muslim as murder 50+ people and you cant even bring yourself to say "Muslim" All you can do is rant about all the people you hate.

It just so happens that a large swatch of Christians feel the same way and therefore get a lot of attention for it.

No this is a broad generalization you thought up based on your hatred and bigotry towards Christians.

If you'd like people to stop being mean to Christians, have Christians stop being mean to others.

A Muslim murdered 50 people. This has nothing to do with Christians. A Muslim murders 50 people and you're here whining about your scape goat "being mean".

It beggars belief, it is almost like they believe deep inside that Christians invented Islam just as a cover for all the bad side operations, but its always the CHRISTIANS FAULT now.

Someone is fomenting war on every level across the board, and war it shall be.

The liberal minded thinkers are in more trouble than they can imagine, no one will trust them at all once the real problems hit the proverbial fan............

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Its amazing as well that there are some that will toss the blanket over all religion in a case like this but then turn around and defend Muslims as not all bad ect.

Taking the whole of Muslim violence where it has been and be what it may all over the world over the last 15 years and breaking out the "organized religion" card on all has got to be the f'in panicle of stupid or shill. No one comes close in comparison. There is not a total "organized" number......just those little ol Muslim radicals and infighting.

Well said! All Muslims aren't bad, because this one was, but all Christians are bad, and should lose their right to free religion, because, gee, some dare to state that something is a sin. No going around shooting people like this MUSLIM did, who might have also been gay, but, hey! Let's all blame the Christians!!

So muh for denying ignorance......

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There is a vast difference between bigotry and in going out and killing those one dislikes.

It a fine line and a slippery slope.

People have every right to dislike whomever they want.

Bigotry has nothing to do with personally disliking someone. Bigotry is about hating a group because of who they are.

Bigotry is still a right. People have the right to think what we want, to like or dislike whoever, and whatever, we want. Slippery slope?? Really? So, when Christians state that allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope, we are wrong, but a Muslim shooting up a gay nightclub means religious freedom is a slippery slope?

Really?!?!?

if you actually believe that, I don't know what to say.

originally posted by: TheBulk

Because they've been taught that hating Christians is progressive and blaming Islam or Muslims for anything is racist or hateful in some way. Now of course they're being hateful towards Christians, but they have been brainwashed to believe hate towards them is a good thing. It's the same with SJWs that are racist towards whites, while telling themselves its not possible to be racist to whites.

Slow down there Hoss... Who exactly are these "they" you are referencing? Liberals? Progressives? If so, I'd like the chance to address those inaccurate representations, speaking as a progressive liberal...

In arguments such as these it seems that people decide to drop nuance at the door and wade in, full bore, thinking in black and white terms. I don't blame Islam for what happened in Orlando. I blame an asshat who happened to be Muslim. I'll even add more nuance and mention that Salafist Jihadists are no more representative of an entire religion than strychnine drinking rattle snake handlers are representative of Christianity.

Oh, and just to clear things up. I do not hate Christians. In fact I consider myself one. Maybe that is why I make such loud noises when people choose to engage in patently UN-Christlike behavior in the name of Christ.

I'll also dispel with this assumption that progressives think it impossible for racism to be directed at whites from other races. Racism is racism. Period. Show me a dark skinned person who says they hate white people and I will call them a racist without pause or exception.

And I'll finish off with the blunt and blanket statement "To Hell with social justice nonsense." and add that there really aren't that many SJW's in the world and the vast majority of those who claim that title are college kids going through a stage. Sadly some media outlets make it seem like there are billions and billions of them.

The same media outlets who tend to suggest that every brown skinned person is probably a drug dealer or terrorist waiting to violate our children and murder us all at a moments notice.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ketsuko

So the majority of us lose our freedom and rights because of the few?

No I'm not asking anybody to loose rights and freedoms. I'm asking that they don't create laws that are ONLY used to discriminate against a specific group.

What you are actually saying is that you want to suspend the rights of certain groups - religious groups - in the name of supposedly protecting the rights of another group. It's sick, and completely against freedom, and frankly, I am disgusted that more than forty people flagged this anti-religion bigotry thread.

That is what this is.

No, that is not it.

You have the right to be a bigot.

You do not have the right to discriminate against people because of your bigotry while trying to hide behind religion (ANY religion).

That's the bottom line.

As to the Matthew 19 reference to "eunuchs," it is referring to eunuchs, those who were made eunuchs by castration, those who were born impotent, and those who chose to keep themselves chaste for the sake of holiness.

It may have been a slang of the time for gay, but I'd like to see that reference as it does not show up in Strong's Concordance, nor did I find it in some internet searching. Rome had plenty of Latin slang terms, but none of them were even close to eunuch in meaning.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ketsuko

So the majority of us lose our freedom and rights because of the few?

No I'm not asking anybody to loose rights and freedoms. I'm asking that they don't create laws that are ONLY used to discriminate against a specific group.

What you are actually saying is that you want to suspend the rights of certain groups - religious groups - in the name of supposedly protecting the rights of another group. It's sick, and completely against freedom, and frankly, I am disgusted that more than forty people flagged this anti-religion bigotry thread.

That is what this is.

No, that is not it.

You have the right to be a bigot.

You do not have the right to discriminate against people because of your bigotry while trying to hide behind religion (ANY religion).

That's the bottom line.

If I respectfully decline to bake a cake for your wedding because I don't think my God would approve of MY actions, then how do you determine whether or not I'm lying?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

a reply to: [post=20848527]tothetenthpower[post]


I am not blaming Christians for this massacre obviously, how about we tone down the hyperbole?

I'm saying that in a majority Christian nation, if the Christians consistently bad mouth a group and discriminate against them, it's going to influence the thoughts of other groups.

Oh it couldn`t have been a Muslim Cleric outlining its only compassionate to kill gays in a Mosque in Florida a few months back, no no it has to be Christians that pushed this guy over the edge and slaughter 49 people.

In my 50 odd years of life I have NEVER known a Christian to hurt insult a homosexual, I have only known atheists who have. I have only also known Christians bashed physically and mentally abused by Atheists, and most before I even became a Christian.



Your in denial with you Christian hate.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ketsuko

So the majority of us lose our freedom and rights because of the few?

No I'm not asking anybody to loose rights and freedoms. I'm asking that they don't create laws that are ONLY used to discriminate against a specific group.

What you are actually saying is that you want to suspend the rights of certain groups - religious groups - in the name of supposedly protecting the rights of another group. It's sick, and completely against freedom, and frankly, I am disgusted that more than forty people flagged this anti-religion bigotry thread.

That is what this is.

No, that is not it.

You have the right to be a bigot.

You do not have the right to discriminate against people because of your bigotry while trying to hide behind religion (ANY religion).

That's the bottom line.

We already have laws against discrimination, and against violent crimes. What seems to be proposed in the OP is laws against religious freedom, and that would be bad for everyone.

How many would want a law that required them to attend this or that religious service? Or, better yet, requiring someone to state that they believed this or that? No one would want that, I am guessing, save folks like the terrorists. Any law that restricted what people were allowed to believe would be equally as bad. Are we to simply toss out the Constitution?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Well said! All Muslims aren't bad, because this one was, but all Christians are bad, and should lose their right to free religion, because, gee, some dare to state that something is a sin.

Hardly what's being said by anyone here.

Classic persecution complex.

Muslim mans hoots up gay clubs, therefore Christian religion is "under attack".

Please.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
We already have laws against discrimination, and against violent crimes. What seems to be proposed in the OP is laws against religious freedom, and that would be bad for everyone.

Not really. The OP literally has calls for exactly zero laws.

How many would want a law that required them to attend this or that religious service? Or, better yet, requiring someone to state that they believed this or that? No one would want that, I am guessing, save folks like the terrorists. Any law that restricted what people were allowed to believe would be equally as bad. Are we to simply toss out the Constitution?

What exactly is the scenario described that you are combating? It seems to not exist... I believe there is a call-out for a fallacy here. I mean, if the sermon that you really claim to deserve to attend is one that is not only blatantly violent, but is incredibly criminally illegal, what "religious freedom" really deserves to be protected for it?

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't like the LGBT community, but I'll always be polite and defend THEIR right to live THEIR lives the way they choose.
Ain't none of my business.

and it shouldn't be anyone else's.

That is all we need. To be let live in peace and equality with the same freedom as everyone else, answering to the same laws as everyone else.

You don't have to like us, we just ask you let us do our thing.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ketsuko

So the majority of us lose our freedom and rights because of the few?

No I'm not asking anybody to loose rights and freedoms. I'm asking that they don't create laws that are ONLY used to discriminate against a specific group.

What you are actually saying is that you want to suspend the rights of certain groups - religious groups - in the name of supposedly protecting the rights of another group. It's sick, and completely against freedom, and frankly, I am disgusted that more than forty people flagged this anti-religion bigotry thread.

That is what this is.

No, that is not it.

You have the right to be a bigot.

You do not have the right to discriminate against people because of your bigotry while trying to hide behind religion (ANY religion).

That's the bottom line.

If I respectfully decline to bake a cake for your wedding because I don't think my God would approve of MY actions, then how do you determine whether or not I'm lying?

That's fine, but if you hold out a public business serving the public, if you determine you will not serve a specific member of the public because of their sexual orientation you have broken the laws regarding public accommodation (that cover everyone equally).

You could make the same argument, that you honestly believe your God wants you to shoot gay people in a nightclub.

That's illegal for precisely the same reason.

originally posted by: ketsuko
As to the Matthew 19 reference to "eunuchs," it is referring to eunuchs, those who were made eunuchs by castration, those who were born impotent, and those who chose to keep themselves chaste for the sake of holiness.

It may have been a slang of the time for gay, but I'd like to see that reference as it does not show up in Strong's Concordance, nor did I find it in some internet searching. Rome had plenty of Latin slang terms, but none of them were even close to eunuch in meaning.

The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural Eunuchs - Presentation at Cardiff University

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Don't confuse...killing [with] non-acceptance.

Fine. See, because even if it's not "killing" It is definitely bullying, discrimination, shaming, power-mongering, abuse, disenfranchisement, and general bigoted ugliness.

Oh whine, whine, whine.

Bullying is wrong. Who bullys gay people?
Discrimination is illegal. Not much of it happens.
Power-mongering? What the hell is that?
Abuse? Who is abusing gay people?
Disenfranchisement? You mean discrimination?
General bigoted ugliness? You mean a negative opinion of someone's lifestyle? Get over it.

There are and will always be people who don't like blacks, whites, jews, gays, etc. just because of who and what they are. There are also people that don't like redheads, people with long hair and people who binge-watch Law & Order. I'm sorry that you are so concerned with some people not liking you. Maybe go see a Doctor and get some help with your ego or your insecurities. If you are at all different (and everyone is), you will be disliked by others. GTFU!!! (grow the * up). Shut up...live your life...ignore the haters...stop trying to force other's views...and have a wonderful life.

If you want to make your goal in life to force acceptance upon others, get in their face and demand respect and generally whine about being treated just like everyone else...you're going to be disappointed.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

There most certainly will NOT always be those who refuse to accept that others choices are their own affair, and not for those who cannot understand them to militate against. It may be that the human race will die out, ending their mindless self indulgence, or the human race may evolve to the point where only the heat death of the universe can kill it, because it has learned that it's members must work together and respect one another in order for the whole to surivive.

But either way, bigots and fascists will not always be around.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I disagree. Even those who stand on a pedestal pointing at the "bigots" and "intolerant" secretly hate others. Even if it is only the bigots and intolerant. But there are usually others. That is how the human animal is built. We are designed to label and categorize things we encounter. We put them in neat little boxes and decided based upon personal experience (if any) or the experience of others (if not) if that box is bad, good, dangerous, etc.

In my opinion...unless we change our genetic make-up or become some cyborg type creation of our own, we will remain exactly what nature made us. Sure...we can disguise ourselves...pretend and lie that we are "better" than what we actually are. But it is just a lie. Look around. Often it is the "perfect" people who hate the most...discriminate the most and do the most evil.

Our only real problem is our illogical belief that "we are better than that". We spend much of our lives judging ourselves and others based upon made-up and unreal ideals that we can't hope to attain. And I'd say we are worse for that. Maybe understanding that we are flawed and will not become some God-like being someday, we COULD learn to live together as flawed creatures that are obnoxious, bigoted, pre-judgmental animals. At least then...there wouldn't be the expectation of more.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Oh...and on your first sentence. I never said "their own affair". When one group attempts to force a person who has differing opinions, morals or views to "accept" theirs...they will fail. And there is way too much forcing of views upon others going on. If they kept to "their own affairs"...there wouldn't be as many problems. But they don't. They force them upon others and THAT is where the trouble begins.

a reply to: windword

Bigotry has nothing to do with personally disliking someone. Bigotry is about hating a group because of who they are.

Again, as ugly as it is to face up to, every citizen has the right to be a bigot.

We do not have to agree with someone to defend their right to their opinion.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Bigotry is still a right.

a reply to: butcherguy

every citizen has the right to be a bigot.

Bigotry is not a right any more than ignorance and stupidity are rights. They are mental states. Mental states are not actionable. We don't have thought police. We police actions, and the actions that result from bigotry, stupidity and ignorance usually, not always, are illegal actions, but are always detrimental to society.