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

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?

If you're IMPLYING it's a gay wedding, then it doesn't matter if you're lying or not, you're still discriminating.

If you're implying God is against simply baking cakes, then you shouldn't have a business as a baker, especially if, as a business owner who accommodates the public, you can't bake cakes for people who come in.

You cannot hide behind religion in order to discriminate.

a reply to: windword

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.

Sorry, but you are wrong.
The Ku Klux Klan is an organization of bigots.
They have the right to their ideas.
They get to have parades, as long as they fill out all of the paperwork.
The courts and cops have to protect those rights of theirs just as they have to protect the rights of the New Black Panther Party when they have a parade.
I wish that our society was of the caliber that neither organization existed..... BUT they DO.
They have the right to their ideas and thoughts.... as much as anyone may not agree with them.

a reply to: 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.

No, Christians are proposing and writing NEW laws, all across the country, that allow them to bypass discrimination laws, to discriminate indiscriminately against people that they disagree with.

a reply to: butcherguy

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Ku Klux Klan is an organization of bigots.

Maybe, maybe not. Thoughts are not actionable. What they actually do as an organization, or as individuals representing their organization, is what is illegal or legal.

Bigotry, in and of itself, is neither legal nor illegal, protected nor unprotected. You can't claim that because you're a bigot that you have the right to break the law based on your bigotry.

a reply to: windword
Would I be a bigot if I did not let my daughter's gay friend come into my house with her if he came with her to visit?
Would I be breaking a law?
If I refuse to go into a place of business because the owner is a certain race, doesn't that make me a bigot?
Is it against the law?

You can be an acting bigot without breaking a law.

You can't claim that because you're a bigot that you have the right to break the law based on your bigotry.

I didn't, so don't make stuff up.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

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

Why would we need a law against religious freedom? As you said, we already have laws against discrimination; religious freedom laws are simply the right to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom.

No, what seems to be proposed in the OP is making sure laws aren't passed that *allow* discrimination while hiding behind religion, especially in private businesses that accommodate the public.

Any law that restricted what people were allowed to believe would be equally as bad.

Agreed. But, I don't recall the OP or myself ever saying anything about outlawing what people believe.

Are we to simply toss out the Constitution?

The rest of you post is a hyperbolic slippery slope argument and is not realistic in the context of preventing discrimination by not allowing the passage of religious "freedom" laws. In fact, it's quite the opposite of "tossing out the constitution" but rather maintaining the constitutional principles of equality and *not* passing discriminatory legislation.

a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't, so don't make stuff up.

YOU need to pull away and not take everything so personal. When I said "you", I meant the proverbial "you".

Would I be a bigot if I did not let my daughter's gay friend come into my house with her if he came with her to visit? Would I be breaking a law? If I refuse to go into a place of business because the owner is a certain race, doesn't that make me a bigot? Is it against the law?

Why do you, I mean YOU, make me repeat myself:
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.

If you refused your daughter's gay friend service in your place of business based on their sexual orientation or color, then that would be against the law. Claiming to be exempt from the law because of bigotry doesn't give one a free pass to discriminate.

a reply to: windword

YOU need to pull away and not take everything so personal. When I said "you", I meant the proverbial "you".

You are replying to my post, so by posting that sentence, it would make it seem as though you believe that my argument is that being a bigot is an excuse to break the law. It is not my position and i want others to be aware of that.

If you refused your daughter's gay friend service in your place of business based on their sexual orientation or color, then that would be against the law. Claiming to be exempt from the law because of bigotry doesn't give one a free pass to discriminate.

Why do YOU feel a need to change what I wrote? I didn't mention a place of business specifically for a reason.
Would I be a bigot if I would not let a person in my house for no other reason than that they are gay?
Could you please answer the question instead of writing a new one for me that suits you.
My point is that you can be a bigot without breaking the law. Actively. You can speak hate freely without being arrested for it, if you are not exhorting others to violence.

a reply to: butcherguy

You are replying to my post, so by posting that sentence, it would make it seem as though you believe that my argument is that being a bigot is an excuse to break the law. It is not my position and i want others to be aware of that.

I never called you a bigot, you're the one that made it about you and stepped into that role.

Like I said, bigotry, in and of itself, is not a right and is neither legal nor illegal, protected nor unprotected. Actions are what is being called into question, not beliefs.

"Bigotry" will always exist. Every human will always have their own feelings and opinions. It's the responsibility for each side to not become bigoted by assuming others are bigoted.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

You are replying to my post, so by posting that sentence, it would make it seem as though you believe that my argument is that being a bigot is an excuse to break the law. It is not my position and i want others to be aware of that.

I never called you a bigot, you're the one that made it about you and stepped into that role.

Like I said, bigotry, in and of itself, is not a right and is neither legal nor illegal, protected nor unprotected. Actions are what is being called into question, not beliefs.

I didn't blame you for calling me a bigot, and you are aware of that.
I asked you a question, to help you understand my point about bigots and the law.

You have sidestepped answering that question repeatedly and now are making an effort to tack the name bigot on me, so that tells me that you are fully aware that I am correct.

a reply to: butcherguy

..........so that tells me that you are fully aware that I am correct.

Corrected about what?

Bigotry is not a right, it's a state of mind. We don't have thought police, we police people for their actions. Discrimination is illegal, whether you're a bigot or not. Bigotry, in and of itself, doesn't offer protected status to those who would abuse the rights of others, hiding their bigotry behind religion.

You don't have to have an organized religion to be a bigot.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I hardly think that being afforded the same rights and respect as any other citizen, qualifies as forcing their view on others. Forcing others to participate in their sexual preference would be forcing their view on someone else, not to mention being an act of rape at that point.

There is a very big difference, and here's the thing... The view people complain about being shoved down their throats, is that homosexuals ought to have the same rights as everyone else, which is not a point of view in fact, simply a fact. If you have a society which values equality at all, you cannot disagree with this on any level without applying a double standard, and invalidating everyone's freedoms and rights.

So. Either homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, to get married, to be served by businesses conducting a commercial exercise from a street facing store, to not be harassed in the street because they have a different lifestyle, to not be treated differently than a straight person in any way by the government, or the entire ideal of equality, all of it, is pointless, invalidated, and a sham. That's the equality that you have with your states senator, the equality under the law that your neighbour has with the person who owns the company she buys her energy from, and all of that. All that real world stuff that the law relies on, for everything. All invalid.

It's one or the other, there are no grey spaces on this one.

a reply to: TheBulk

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.

A madman - an insane, depraved, confused, bewildered, off-his-head mentally ill man - murdered and/or injured 100 people.
His religion is a side issue.

MENTAL ILLNESS is the primary issue.

a reply to: pyramid head

So like a mentally ill person you link this to all religion.

Maybe instead of being a brainwashed coward, you could admit this is an ISLAMIC radical who did this and THATS the problem.

What a nonsensical pair of statements....

A 'mentally ill person' just killed 50 people and hurt 50 more.
That is all there is to "admit". Mental illness overtook this guy, and he snapped. And religion didn't help...it actually might very well have opened the door and provided him with just what he 'needed' to go actively murder. But first of all, he was living with mental illness.
His ex-wife figured out after a few brief months with him that he was unstable, bipolar, prone to explosive outbursts even when unprovoked. He was a nutjob.

The fact that mental illness and religion often feed on each other is what is important here.

This thread is great. It exemplifies exactly why the progressive movement is going to fail, and why average people are beginning to wake up to just how insane many of the ideas being expressed by progressives are.

A Muslim kills gay people, calls in to 911 and announces his allegiance to ISIS leadership, shouts Islamic phrases while doing it, and people blame Christians.

Not only that, then when people show how absurd that is, people then say "Oh poor Christians, inserting themselves into this and making this about them" knowing full well the op started this.

How anyone can compare making marriage laws, or bathroom laws, to shooting innocent people is ridiculous.

I am sick of this hip progressive agenda, and I am an atheist. We know, its cool to blame Christians, but Muslims are oppressed, and we can never talk ill of them.

To all of the reasonable people on this thread that can't believe how this tragedy can be blamed on Christians, I recommend just letting the progressives keep spouting their nonsense. As with any crazed ideology, the best way to discredit it is to just let them speak.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheBulk

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.

A madman - an insane, depraved, confused, bewildered, off-his-head mentally ill man - murdered and/or injured 100 people.
His religion is a side issue.

MENTAL ILLNESS is the primary issue.

Yeah let's just ignore the fact that he was chanting aloha snack bar while shooting all those people.

originally posted by: TheBulk
This seems to be the preferred left-wing talking point after the shooting. Everywhere I go it's left-wingers ranting about Christians and "religious freedoms". What we have is another extreme Muslim who decided to murder people and left-wingers just can't deal with reality. It's almost as if their programming is forcing them to deflect. Instead of dealing with reality they're letting their anti Christian bigotry got their narrative.

what an ignorant statement this is