It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 12
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
LOL

It's funny how "tolerant" people, only spread hate. Reread, all you see are name calling regarding people who are against the bill.

As a WASP male, there are many religious places that I cannot get married in. I am not only tolerant of that, but support their rights to have their own beliefs. I am not going to go sue them because their beliefs don't match mine. I don't have that kind of ego, telling everyone they have to believe what I believe and act like I act.
If I was in charge of a bachelor party, and wanted to get a cake of some boobs and well, a 5 letter word to call a cat a kitty, and the local bakery said "no". I will not sue them and have the government force them to make me a cake. I would look for a place who makes what I want.

Making people do something they don't want is worse then not letting people do something they want. Hence this bill.

The bottom line, it this is the push back from judicial activism. When those bigots in the blue state of California voted for prop 8(sorry, prop 8 was never described that way for some strange reason) along with all the other states the voted to set up marriage, they all got turned over by unelected officials, with a political agenda. So the states have to try something else.

I really LMAO at the people who talk about equality. Basically any healthy man and women can have a baby, NO same sex couples can have a baby. That baby making ability makes those unions very different. If the unions are very different, they are not equal. In my book patronizing the inferior unions is not very tolerant.....




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thinline
 


What the hell is a wasp male? Are you literally some mutant wasp who has learned to use our technology?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Bundy
reply to post by thinline
 


What the hell is a wasp male? Are you literally some mutant wasp who has learned to use our technology?


White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
edit on 17-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Bundy
reply to post by thinline
 


What the hell is a wasp male? Are you literally some mutant wasp who has learned to use our technology?



Shhhh! It was always their technology. Why do you think we have pretty LEDs on all of our electronics? To attract mates! Why do you think bugs are always trying to get on your screen? Ewww, right?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thinline
 


If the unions are very different, they are not equal. In my book patronizing the inferior unions is not very tolerant.....


these last 2 lines of yours is false logic....if you cannot impregnate your union partner, that union is inferior???....



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Prime example why I vote Libertarian. Republicans and Democrats are both adept and idiocy.I feel very strongly that a business owner should be allowed the freedom of being a douche. Freedom is sometimes not convenient or agreeable to everyone. If they want to come across as bigoted, oh well. Freedom is not forcing one's will on others.

Put another way: This law makes Christians like myself look like jerks. It highlights the issues in our country. Both political parties force stuff on people. Nowadays people get too easily offended and complain because they didn't like something. In other states, business owners are forced to serve orientations that are not my own, which is wrong too. It's not freedom either way. If you have a problem with a business because they run it like crap, go somewhere else! Hurt their bottom line the tried and true way: NO business=no income!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
What makes it bigoted is the fact they call out a specific group of people. If you are really a freedom person and the authors of the bill were. Then it would be the right to remove anyone from your business, even if it's for race, hair color, hieght, sex or whatever reason you want. The definition of bigoted is to point something like this at a specific group of people. At least in the south the average joe will hold up for the fact he thinks it's an abomination. Not hide behind freedom or religion.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Many of you will hate me for saying this but I believe we have the freedom to discriminate, personally or in our business' dealings.

If someone has beliefs that causes them to discriminate against gays, women, people of color, etc....the free market will be the ultimate judge on whether or not that business is successful.

We have to uphold the rights of the people to speak as they wish, believe as they wish, conduct business as they wish and to think that we can put laws in place to stop discrimination is silly. Laws do not change the heart of Men.

But we can keep discrimination at a minimum in the market place if we refuse to spend our money at places that discriminate.

I hope I was clear.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JackSparrow17
 


I agree with most of what you said. I just don't think anyone has been forced to make a cake or whatever. It's made news, witch is part of the free market. Has anyone been forced by the state to work for a homosexual? Or has it just been the ones who have refused got bad press?

That's not the state forcing Christians to go against there beliefs. That's the free market deciding overall we don't like bigots.


I might be wrong. If there have been cases of the state forcing Christians to serve homosexuals. I'll apologize.


P.s. One case of a stupid judge who got appealed doesn't count. Don't know if there has been just a disclaimer lol!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Perfectly sheep. I agree completely. But is it ok for the state to pick one group to place a law like this on?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by JackSparrow17
 


I agree with most of what you said. I just don't think anyone has been forced to make a cake or whatever. It's made news, witch is part of the free market. Has anyone been forced by the state to work for a homosexual? Or has it just been the ones who have refused got bad press?

That's not the state forcing Christians to go against there beliefs. That's the free market deciding overall we don't like bigots.


I might be wrong. If there have been cases of the state forcing Christians to serve homosexuals. I'll apologize.


P.s. One case of a stupid judge who got appealed doesn't count. Don't know if there has been just a disclaimer lol!


Of course it counts. One person was ordered by the court to provide a service they didn't want to provide and it is in the appeals process but that appeal may not work out for them and they will lose. In addition legal fees and time away from work are probably going to ruin them, so instead of just getting a cake from somewhere else, we have this whole unnecessary hullabaloo and a waste of taxpayer dollars.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Perfectly sheep. I agree completely. But is it ok for the state to pick one group to place a law like this on?


No, it is not right for the state legislature to direct this at one group in particular.

What they should have done is written a bill that said "business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason whatsoever".

The bigoted and hateful people that refuse people based on color or sexual preferences would be exposed rather quickly and I would hope most of them would be out of business fairly soon after.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thinline
 



thinline
Basically any healthy man and women can have a baby, NO same sex couples can have a baby. That baby making ability makes those unions very different. If the unions are very different, they are not equal. In my book patronizing the inferior unions is not very tolerant.....


So if a guy and girl are trying to start a family, and they come to find that the girl is barren (infertile), then they are an 'inferior union'? Sounds about what I'd expect from a hive-minded wasp. Now, back to your hive little drone, buzz buzz, buzz buzz.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I ment it doesn't count as proof of over all discrimination of Christians. It isn't right for the government to make a private citizen serve anyone unless it's essential services. However I gotta disagree completely with the
Fox News creation that the white Christian male is the most discriminated against person in America. I'm a white " Christian" male and I don't know how the sheep buy that ridiculousness.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

dragonridr

There is no natural rights thats common law not in the constitution.


You can back off what you said now that you realize your mistake, but this is indeed what you said.



The constitution uses something called inalienable rights which is bestowed on us by the creator.


Again, not the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. Are you certain that it is ME that needs the history lesson?


dragonridr
Just the fact that you dont understand tells me you have no idea where your rights and freedoms came from which is sad really everyone should know.


Well, as you don't seem to understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, I think I'll take my historical advice elsewhere, if you don't mind.


Heres a good place to start take the time to learn what liberty is and by the way freedom doesnt give you the right to tell people they must accept you or your beliefs.


You REALLY don't need to be attempting to school anyone. Your sentences barely make sense. No one here has said anything like that. You need to read what is written before you try to be helpful and look ... well, clueless at best in your posting.


All it says is they cant deny you the right to have those beliefs your freedoms are directly related to the right to worship and believe what you will.


Good lord, no offense, but your writing is almost incomprehensible. Is the "it" in your sentence supposed to refer to the US Constitution? Have you read the Constitution? The First Amendment just doesn't say that you can "believe what you will" it says the Government won't establish a religion.

Really, I think you'd be well served to do a little reading yourself. You don't really seem to understand what we're talking about here, and I say that with all respect.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Whilst, I understand the frustration and I do not agree with the bill. This opening comment:



Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.


Greasy Hillbilly Spoon? That makes you just as bad as the bill, your whole OP would have been better stated without you calling names.

I'm a hillbilly, I love me some LBGT community, they throw some awesome parties
So not all of "hillbillies" are like this.

There's also another 50 states you could move to, not every state has to accomodate everyones likes/dislikes.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

sulaw
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Whilst, I understand the frustration and I do not agree with the bill. This opening comment:



Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.


Greasy Hillbilly Spoon? That makes you just as bad as the bill, your whole OP would have been better stated without you calling names.

I'm a hillbilly, I love me some LBGT community, they throw some awesome parties
So not all of "hillbillies" are like this.

There's also another 50 states you could move to, not every state has to accomodate everyones likes/dislikes.


I was very careful not to call anybody names like "redneck" or "hillbilly". The type of places that will enact this will be backwards establishments therefore "greasy hillbilly spoons". There's a definite correlation thus the colloquialism.

For the record, hillbillies are fine people and I'd never kick them out of my store. Not that you can tell the difference between hillbillies and hipsters these days. 'Cause I might ban hipsters.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Just as a heads up, I think they prefer being referred to as hillwilliams, we wouldn't want offend or patronize any of our dentally challenged mountain brethren. o.O



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Just as a heads up, I think they prefer being referred to as hillwilliams, we wouldn't want offend or patronize any of our dentally challenged mountain brethren. o.O


See... that's the kind of meanness I was avoiding. Funny as it is (and it is), that kind of comment shows how a word can be used both positively or negatively. When I say "hillbilly", I have a broad scope of people running through my mind; not just the ones you see in Deliverance.

It's kind of like the word "Jew". Depending on the context, it can be a slur.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Cuervo
Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.

They just passed Bill 2453 which allows businesses to ban gay couples. IT PASSED! I guess if you are nostalgic and you want to relive a bit of the Jim Crow era prejudices, you know have a destination resort right there in Kansas.

Story


On Wednesday, Kansas' Republican-dominated House passed Bill 2453, which makes it legal for individuals, groups, and businesses to refuse services for same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs to do so.

Though the bill claims that it "protects the rights of religious people," some people of faith are against it, explaining that legalizing discrimination doesn't protect religious freedom at all.


So there you have it. Straight up discrimination. And it's to "protect rights" of Christians. Am I allowed to ban Christians from a store? NO! I had to look this up on Snopes because I thought it was a parody article. But it's true.


Funny how that word bigot works.

People who throw it around are guilty of what the decry.

For some people it's gays, other peoples it's gun owners, others it's them evil corporations, others its rich folks, and there is bigotry agianst them evil Christians.

That extends across both sides of the political spectrum, and there is NO ONE without that sin.

Guess we are suppose to only get 'outraged' when it is that 'free commerce business decision' that someone said in another thread.

Government shall make no law abridging religion or the expression there of. People are free to disagree with certain religious practices.

But that is where it begins, and ends.
edit on 17-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join