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

a reply to: Grambler

So you extract a proposed law that allows someone not to serve a gay person food etc. such as the pizzeria and bakery means that they want those people to starve to death? You are absolutely ridiculous!

Obviously, you are uneducated and don't understand the "Religious Freedom and Restoration" state laws being imposed around the country, as well as their implication. Neither do you seem to be versed on the the (unconstitutional) federal Freedom of Religion and Restoration Act. Otherwise you wouldn't have such an ignorant response.

Article the third...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

originally posted by: Liquesence

If you're IMPLYING it's a gay wedding

Well duhhhh... no need to yell.

then it doesn't matter if you're lying or not

What do you mean it doesn't matter? If your contention is that I'm hiding behind my religion, then it most certainly does matter.

you're still discriminating.

But am I being an anti-gay bigot? Is everyone who would rather not bake that cake an anti-gay bigot?

That's the point of this thread remember...

"time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom"

a reply to: JimBielson

Cheers!

I don't mean to be an arse about this sort of thing, but these days it is more important than ever to reign in the habit that has formed over the last few years, or using the wrong words in the wrong place.

With sensitivities at an all time high, getting the little things right first is of paramount importance, and never more than at a time like this. It's important to only, and sometimes carefully, say EXACTLY what you mean, lest more frustration and sadness result. With the ebb so high for that particular emotion right now, adding to the pot in an avoidable fashion is less than wise.

And you are right, bullying is bullying period.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
a reply to: JimBielson

Even if all that were the case, the fact is that the guy had been on the FBIs terror watch list since 2001 for publicly praising the attacks on the twin towers.

His ex-wife reported that she drove him to Disney World before the attack, but he decided he did not want to go after seeing the high security.

He wanted to commit a mass shooting in the name of his god. You could argue that he wanted to get 2 birds with one stone and that's why he went to Pulse, I would entertain that. You don't, however, get to erase the plain fact that the man pledged himself to ISIL and had been planning this for a while.

It was absolutely religiously motivated. Clear as ever.

Well you could be correct but only as a partial motive. It seems he expressed views bordering on madness against the LGBT community but that really doesn't explain why people are now reporting he was actually trying to pick up men at the club unless he was highly conflicted in his feelings as a gay man and wanted to outwardly express heterosexuality but every where he want he thought everyone saw him as a homosexual. Again, he was over compensating here too.

In contrast, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mateen had expressed anti-gay views that horrified his classmates at Indian River State College, where he received an associate's degree in 2006. A person who worked at the school during that time said some students would try to "educate" Mateen on his views.

Source

Maybe he was deeply ashamed of his feelings. He over reacted when trying to associate with what he saw as an envied peer group and he felt rejected and humiliated when his advances were rejected. I think he wanted to be a part of Pulse. It offered the fulfillment he desired. I think his over compensation combined with his religious background may have been the trigger.

We are all human and no one likes the guy or girl that to us seems like a flake and our reactions can be considered bullying by today's standards.

His other targets may have been Disney World or wherever but I do not think he was seriously considering those. I think he came home and decided to really hurt the ones he wanted to love.

a reply to: JimBielson

The problem I have with the idea of it being mostly because of his feelings towards other patrons at Pulse is that he had been openly advocating jihadist attacks since before the age of 11.

I wouldn't rule out that it could've been the tipping point if he hadn't had other sites in mind until very close to the date of the attack.

a reply to: JimBielson

If we want to talk racism, however, I would note that it was Latino Night and he specifically said that he would not shoot any "blacks" because he "had no problems with them".

The guy is definitely a well-rounded nutjob.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
a reply to: JimBielson

The problem I have with the idea of it being mostly because of his feelings towards other patrons at Pulse is that he had been openly advocating jihadist attacks since before the age of 11.

Well, the problem I have with it mostly being a religious attack is based on what is being reported now. The last quote of the article I cited was about someone making a joke at his expense and he pulled a knife on that person. The guy was so conflicted about who he was he couldn't see straight.

It seems the guy could not let go and get to the place he wanted to be so he went in another direction and took many with him. I am willing to concede that his religion may have had something to do with it but I think that is a smaller piece of the whole and was the excuse he used for what he did.

I think he wanted to love them and in his twisted mind if he couldn't love them, no one could.

originally posted by: DeadFoot
a reply to: JimBielson

If we want to talk racism, however, I would note that it was Latino Night and he specifically said that he would not shoot any "blacks" because he "had no problems with them".

The guy is definitely a well-rounded nutjob.

I guess that could be.. Being gay and racist are not mutually exclusive are they? I suspect there are many people who are gay that are racist.. People may preferred black men and I dont see a problem with that in as much that person doesn't express his distaste for others by going on a murderous rampage, being a bully or whatever. '

Live and let live...One thing he never learned..

a reply to: Bone75

What do you mean it doesn't matter? If your contention is that I'm hiding behind my religion, then it most certainly does matter.

You conveniently left out the rest of it, where I said it's discrimination regardless of whether or not you lie about your religious belief.

Is everyone who would rather not bake that cake an anti-gay bigot?

That's the point of this thread remember...

Well, the point of the thread is not specifically about baking cakes for gays, but if someone does not serve someone (in your example baking a cake) for the sole reason that that it's a gay couple, then yes.

The point of the thread, which the OP also says (and this will be the third time I've quoted it because people don't seem to comprehend the essence of the OP) is:

Not wanting to serve people because of your feelings towards them is not your right or your freedom in the 21st century.

originally posted by: Liquesence




The point of the thread, which the OP also says (and this will be the third time I've quoted it because people don't seem to comprehend the essence of the OP) is:

]Not wanting to serve people because of your feelings towards them is not your right or your freedom in the 21st century.

No, the point of this thread is showing that the people pushing for religous exemption laws helped lead to the murder of 50 people.

From the article listed in the OP;

If casual misogyny and sexist humour helped create Marc Lépine, then organized religion must reflect on helping shape a culture that will this week have led to 50 funerals in Florida.

The point of this thread is doing anything possible to shift blame away from violent Islamists and the man who committed these murders and to shift the blame to Christians.

a reply to: Grambler

Accusing Christians and shifting blame? No, no, no. Just citing the obvious, that is, 2 sides of the same coin.

a reply to: Grambler

Perfect

originally posted by: Liquesence

You conveniently left out the rest of it, where I said it's discrimination regardless of whether or not you lie about your religious belief.

I'm pretty sure I quoted it and put you back in context.

if someone does not serve someone (in your example baking a cake) for the sole reason that it's a gay couple, then yes.

And I happen to agree with you, but again, how do you make that determination? If I decline to make the cake because I don't want to commit a sin, then how can you, in good conscience, call me or anyone else a lying, no good bigot, who's hiding his hate for homosexuals behind his religion?

If casual misogyny and sexist humour helped create Marc Lépine, then organized religion must reflect on helping shape a culture that will this week have led to 50 funerals in Florida. It's not just the extremists who want to deprive gays of human rights.

Lets examine this statement using predicate logic. The first clause "If casual misogyny and sexist humor helped create Marc Lepine Who knows what created Marc Lepine? He identified his hatred as stemming from being rejected and mistreated, not attending a misogynist stand-up routine when he was a kid. "Casual misogyny" causes mass murder???? What about mental illness.

Unfortunately, when an incident like this happens, political correctness is sure to abound.

"Its not just extremists who want to deprive gays of human rights" Oh, its rank and file faithful attending the local mosque and church. Neil MacDonald is a little vague about those attending the synogogue, especially since the offending scripture he quotes comes from the Tanakh.

When the CBC gets preachy, its time to switch channels. Given the recent misogyny by CBC's own "Jian Gomeshi", this sermon seems a little hypocritical.

Some of you are laughable.... you look at a rose and call it a daisy...... and then when people try to explain to you its a rose.... you put your fingers in your ears and start singing LA LA LA LA .

The people that proclaim to be on the side of some sort of equality for gays....are the very same people who insist we allow in our nation the people who like nothing better than to throw gays off of roofs...... and here you nutcases go cheering them because they wanna allow you to take your penis in the girls bathroom. If I was gay, I think I would prefer to keep using the same bathroom I always did...... and not have people invited to live here whose religious and personal beliefs allow for the extermination of gays.... people who in fact have a religious based responsibility to do things exactly like Orlando.
We straights have had decades and decades to go on a shooting rampage and NEVER have....... Enter islam in America.
The only difference between being me and some gay guy in the eyes of islam...... is your higher on the list of targets... but we are both targets just the same
islam is a cult that offers human sacrifice to please allah........ and 50 innocent people just perished because of it.
Tomorrow it could be me because their bible says I am also a target, as well as my little girl.
Will the gay community stand with those who invite these people here knowing full well that EVERYWHERE islam goes, tears follow. Or will they stand with those who oppose the infestation of islam in America

First they came for the gays....... but I didnt care because I wasnt gay
Then they came for the Jews... but I didnt care because I wasnt Jewish
Then they came for the Christians..... but I didnt care because I was an athiest
Then they came for me......... and there was nobody left to help ,e

Yeah. Sorry. I agree that the motive was obviously anti-gay. I do not agree that being anti-gay causes mass shootings.

And honestly, what do you propose to do about it? Censorship isn't going to stop people from being anti-gay if that's what they think about it. Overt racism has been highly frowned upon for many years and racial violence still happens.

I'm a bi male myself and I obviously do not want to be killed by some idiot who is offended by it but you know if someone is going to think they don't like me because I'm bi, I can't realistically expect to tell them what they can and can't think. Obviously, thinking something, saying something and inciting violence are all very different things that are being (somewhat) deliberately conflated here by people on all sides.

I don't have a problem with someone who says they don't agree with homosexuality as long as they stop there. They're just expressing an opinion. If they make a threat, that's different. Everyone has things they don't agree with. Everyone has people they just plain don't like. Just because someone doesn't like someone doesn't automatically mean they're going to do something bad. The VAST majority of the time, they don't. But even if they did, the real question would be why they want to FORCE other people conform to their views.

Here is the problem and it doesn't stop with religion or Islam. It's what this whole thing is about. Some people simply cannot stop with expressing their opinion. An opinion isn't dangerous. If someone has an ugly opinion, you probably WANT to hear it so you know that opinion is out there somewhere. But when people want to force others to live the way they think they should, they're obviously not going to stop with an opinion. So it comes down to people actually saying they're going to do something to make things happen. If they actually say they're going to do something violent or they tell someone else to do something violent, that's more than a difference of opinion.

But then you run into other problems because let's face it. People are often mean. If someone gets upset with you there are people who will try to get at you any way they can. If they can accuse you of threats to violence or whatever, they will and it will often be your word against theirs. Insanity follows.

originally posted by: JimBielson
Sorry but Orlando was not anti-gay bigotry.

From all reports now, he was a self loathing homosexual or he was jilted by a lover and couldn't handle it. He used ISIS and anti-gay bigotry as the excuse and that was B.S.

This seems now to be the correct interpretation of what happened. A gay guy frequently visits the gay night club, trying to pick up men. But, all he got was rejections. In fact, many witnesses have come forward to say they avoided the guy, when he approached them, because they thought he was weird. And even when he got one guy to chat with him in the club, some of that guys friends texted him, while he was chatting, and told him to come outside, where they told him not to chat with the shooter because they didn't like the guy.

So, you see, discrimination is not a person deciding that they don't like someone. Discrimination is using your influence to get other people to not like that person whom you don't like, just because you don't like that person yourself. This is what the gay guys were doing to him. They put pressure on their friends to not associate with the shooter. So, feeling discriminated against, rejected by the whole environment he was trying so hard to join, he got angry.

That's when he decided to punish the whole club.

If being gay is a right, then everyman should be accepted into the gay club, and treated with the same warm welcome when he tries to make friends. To deliberately get all your friends to "avoid" one particular guy, because you don't like that guy is simply wrong. It's discrimination to the extreme. The shooter was right to get mad. Everybody has the right to be accepted into the group they want to join, without being discriminated against because of the way they may look or because some individual in the group thinks their behavior is a bit off.

The poor gay guy was new at this. He had previously been married to a woman, and it didn't work out. He was looking to find his true self. He wasn't an expert at picking up gays. He didn't know all the rules and the clues of gay dating. He didn't know how to give off the "right signals" to attract a date. So, of course he seemed a bit off. The gay guys in that club didn't give him a chance. They shunned the guy even though he was a "regular" at the club.

After all that effort to "fit in", the guy just decided to end his life and all those who rejected him in a hail of bullets.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
To deliberately get all your friends to "avoid" one particular guy, because you don't like that guy is simply wrong. It's discrimination to the extreme. The shooter was right to get mad. Everybody has the right to be accepted into the group they want to join, without being discriminated against because of the way they may look or because some individual in the group thinks their behavior is a bit off.

Did you miss the part where he pulled a knife on a couple people?

Smith and Callen say they stopped talking to Mateen when he pulled a knife on them after they made a religious comment. "He said if he ever messed with him again, you know how it'll turn out," Callen said.

There is a limit to being open and accepting.

But, I still like your post

a reply to: Bone75

I'm pretty sure I quoted it and put you back in context.

I'm pretty sure you took it out of context by removing the relevant portion. I just re-contextualized it for ya.

how do you make that determination? If I decline to make the cake because I don't want to commit a sin, then how can you, in good conscience, call me or anyone else a lying, no good bigot, who's hiding his hate for homosexuals behind his religion?

I was unaware that baking a cake is considered sinful. Exactly why are you refusing to bake this cake? Because you *think* you're sinning by baking a cake for gays? If so, why would that be sinful?

I suppose every other customer who comes in is without sin, since you would bake cakes for them; therefore, that argument would make you (or whoever) a hypocrite. And you would be discriminating.

a reply to: Grambler

So, you're saying that what the OP himself wrote in the OP is not the point in the thread even though he said it?

Wow. Carry on.