Chick-Fil-a to stop supporting anti-gay organizations.

Post Reply New Topic

Could you please clarify that? Thank you.

ruveyn

Clearly he's saying the 14th Amendment is bisexual.

That's fine though. Its parents are cool with it. The other Amendments are cool with it. They like having it around for parties. Although the Preamble thinks the 14th Amendment is just a big attention whore. Those two don't get along very well.

Yeah, cause I'm throwing the argument of several individuals (including visagrunt's and you) right back in their faces.

You are saying that people that are homosexual are being discriminated against, and the only way to fix it is to completely ignore the religious liberty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. In states where homosexual marriage is legal, religious charities have been ordered to perform things that are in violation of their religious beliefs. They are told to either get rid of their religious principles or shut down their charity.

Churches have been told they have to allow same sex marriages on their property or they can't use said building for anything other than mass. When a church rents out a building on their grounds, it is with the understanding that nothing will take place on said property that would be found to be morally objectionable to the church. Homosexual marriage is considered sinful (homosexuality in general classifies as morally objectionable), just like a porn studio would be considered morally objectionable (most churches aren't corrupt like what we saw with the Catholic Church), just like a brothel would be considered to be morally objectionable.

Fact is whenever Homosexual Marriage is made legal in a state, it is then used to trample on people's 1st Amendment Rights, despite the false claims made earlier to the contrary (and the same person also admitted this trampling took place in the same post).

Btw, violence directed towards conservatives does happen in the United States, I know the mainstream media likes to ignore violent attacks directed towards conservatives, likes to ignore SWATTING, likes to ignore the vandalism, etc., however the fact that the left wing media doesn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just demonstrates the blatent dishonesty of most of the media.

In the Chick-fil-a "boycott" that backfired, we saw conservatives and moderates coming out in droves to support Chick-fil-a because they are fed up with the Political Correctness insanity.

What was the left's response.
1. Label people as being bigots
2. Bomb threats
3. Vandalism
4. A shooting in Washington DC

I know of some Conservative Bloggers that have been targetted by liberals. Said liberals phoned in phony shootings so that SWAT teams would show up at said Conservative blogger's house (I'm guessing the liberals wanted the Conservative arrested or more likely actually shot full of holes).

So, don't go trying to lecture me about liberal civility, or the idea that liberals are tolerant.

Difference between when a Conservative commits an act of violence compared to when a Liberal commits it.

The mainstream media tries to brand all Conservatives as hate mongers, while trying to sweep violent acts committed by liberals under the rug and pretend nothing happened.

In short, these attacks on people's 1st Amendment Rights (specifically their religious liberties), have actually happened and continue to happen; just the mainstream media likes to look the other way cause they view their left wing ideology to be more important than telling the truth and doing their jobs as journalists.

Remember that little scenario I posted where I reversed the roles, and heterosexual Christians were the ones persecuted by a homosexual, heterophobic church? Did you read that? Because it refuted your core argument several pages ago.

I have little else to say to you. You clearly live in a different universe where the laws of physics and observable reality do not apply. You have cocooned yourself among like-minded radicals who have become so insular, so emotional in their perception of events, so eager to turn even the most non-partisan issues into "left vs right" "good vs evil" "Hatfields vs McCoys" issues, that you've lost the ability to communicate with anyone outside this group. You're clearly not posting any of this to convince anyone else here. If posting it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

I maintain that banning same-sex marriage on a statewide level violates the religious beliefs of everyone who isn't an Evangelical Christian, or a Hasidic Jew, or a Muslim. Your 1st amendment rights end when they infringe on someone else's Constitutional Rights. That's why cults who have religious beliefs that justify ritual sacrifice are not allowed to openly practice the teachings of their faith. This scenario with same-sex marriage is a less extreme example of the same thing.

Probably never saw it, I have been sick for a few days and then after that too busy to be on the computer.

The argument you are suggesting is rather implausible because any church like that would be fairly short-lived due to lack of offspring for a new generation.



Actually I know it is rather unlikely for me to change the views of anyone here, in fact it is more likely for me to change my views simply cause I understand a common trait of people on the spectrum. It is very hard for someone on the spectrum to change their viewpoint on anything even when facts are shown to disprove what they believe. People in general can be this way, difference here is that I was lucky to actually had been taught at an early age to try to stop and consider the other person's viewpoint, or if there is another explanation, it wasn't easy to do, but I learned to do it.

Believe it or not, I actually used to be substancially more liberal than I am now. I changed my positions over time as I learned new information.

There is another item that you all have failed to consider, you know how we often find a particular topic we are interested in and then try to learn every little fact and detail concerning said topic. Well national politics is one topic I'm very interested in, because I've gotten very alarmed due to what all has been going on.

There was a reason why I wasn't all too concerned about George W. Bush, because the Press were deranged whenever it came to President Bush; they were bound and determined to find every little thing Bush did wrong. It is the same reason why Obama scares me, because the press always seems to be more interested in sleeping with Obama than holding Obama acountable. If you had any objectivity you would share the same concern.



You are entitled to your opinion, I will point out though that I'm not sure there is any religion that actually allows homosexual marriage off the top of my head. Catholics essentially use the same Bible as Evangelicals Christians, mormons also read the Bible. The entire Jewish religion considers homosexuality to be sinful (in case you hadn't noticed the Old Testament is found in the Torah and Talmud (sp?)).

I've heard arguments that Atheism is not a religion, are you suggesting it is a religion? If so then government is violating the Constitution to place the religion of Atheism above other religions.

Here it is again, and your scenario of the population dying out is accounted for.

Suppose it was someone's religious belief that gay relationships were the only correct relationships endorsed by god, and straight relationships were caused by satan. Suppose this religion endorsed gay marriage and banned heterosexual marriage. Suppose it was codified into law that the only purpose for heterosexual intercourse was reproduction, and they held ceremonies once a year to impregnate women of a certain age, and then went back to having gay sex for the rest of their lives. Suppose people belonging to this religious group were a majority in your country, and they used their government to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, even people who didn't share it, like yourself.



What 'liberal' opinions did you used to have? You've piqued my interest.

I respect this part of your post. It's the most humanizing thing you've ever said. I have found that it is possible to reach an agreement in a heated debate, but only if the parties are civil to each other. I think you'll find that most people have changed their minds a few times on some issues. My core economic philosophy has not changed in a long time. It moved gradually left until it couldn't anymore, and since then it's just been coated with stronger layers of arguments over the years. I have been convinced of other things though. Could it be possible to alter my economic views with sufficient evidence, but it would be like someone proving with evidence that stands the test of time that stars in the sky are actually little tiny dots in a giant black curtain just a few kilometers above us, instead of giant nuclear explosions in space. The kind of scientific revelation that would have to occur in the field of economics would have to be that extreme to change my mind.


We're all interested in politics. That's why we're here.

Your lack of concern over Bush seems hypocritical. Reminder that the "mainstream media" you criticize was predominantly in favor of the War in Iraq. The dissent came from leftist internet circles, though after it turned into a quagmire the idea that the war was a mistake began to get more leverage.

I think Obama is just as much a war criminal as Bush was. He has expanded executive powers beyond what even Bush attempted. His policy toward detainees gets a blind eye from many on the left because he is a democratic president. If it were a Republican doing the same things, they would be all over it. No question about that. I strongly considered not voting for him again based on his reneging on many of his campaign promises, abandoning the public option when he pushed for healthcare reform, and signing things like the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement--which gives corporations in many foreign countries in the pacific basin free reign to ignore American regulations on our own soil. That last point, something that Bush pushed for, and which Obama signed when it ended up on his desk, is again not talked about much. Romney supports all of these policies as well. It's infuriating. I could write several more paragraphs.

At the same time, some aspects you've brought up seem very dubious, for someone who claims to be a bastion of objectivity. "The liberal media", for one. What liberal media? This is a talking point that shows up in right wing outlets sometimes, but it strikes me as more of a tactic to attempt to shift the center of political discussion further right than it already is, by giving them an effortless rhetorical attack to spew. I see no evidence to justify this claim.

I see a corporate media in unanimous support of the corporate party. Fox news is clearly partisan. MSNBC has recently become partisan in the opposite direction, but I don't consider the Democrats liberal, nor do I consider Republicans a 'capitalistic, free-market' party. In fact policy-wise the Democrats are quite to the right of center, in terms of economic and foreign policy. Not to the extent that the Republicans have become, but they are about where the Republicans were back in 1980, as is every single major news outlet on TV. Social issues are the only issues where the party remains left-leaning.

"liberal media", to me, would be something like Dissent magazine or The Nation if that were the entire news industry. Those don't have nearly the audience that Fox News has--which is the largest editorial broadcast provider by a substantial amount, and which is painfully unabashedly partisan as f**k.


So because atheism is not a religion, atheists should be forced to practice the religious beliefs of others? Is that what you're suggesting? Ridiculous that you'd suggest that atheism is 'favored' by the government. Really... In a country where an atheist would have a harder time being elected to public office at a Federal level than a gay muslim? In a country that offers tax exemptions for religious organizations?

When, where gay marriage is legal, have gays ever successfully sued a church, mosque, or synagogue for not being allowed to marry in their facilities? In fact, when have gays have unsuccessfully sued them?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Actually I think there is a religious belief system. However, when you get down into it, quite a bit of it would be considered child abuse also since young boys are forced to perform **** *** for older boys, under the belief that it will cause the younger boy to grow up.

Even then though, they still have heterosexual marriage, so I don't know of any culture where this kind of idea worked.



Used to believe in global warming and it was man-made, now I really am not sure what to think, there is evidence that suggests unethical behavior on both sides, and I'm at the point of saying everything should be thrown out and started over. I also know the Earth has a history of global warming/cooling so this man-made argument may not be entirely accurate.

Used to actually think government could solve things that it clearly can't.

Used to think that gun control actually made sense, but after actually doing the research, I've noticed that gun control often spurs more violence not less, cause the criminals couldn't care less about gun control laws. Also our 2nd Amendment is centered around protecting the people from the government.

Also Clinton's handling of Elien Gonzolas royally ticked me off.

I also found it interesting how rich liberals wanted people to pay more taxes to fund these government anti-poverty initiatives yet they weren't willing to write a check to donate money to charities themselves. Whereas Conservatives don't like high taxes yet they are more than willing to give their own money to charities.

I used to see the UN as a force for good, in fact schools taught that, but I've learned now to see it as a very corrupt organization and that there really needs to be a discussion as to whether or not we should defund it and watch it collapse. "Oil for food" is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also read some books by Conservatives, and then did my own research since stuff seemed really far fetched, and then discovered something even more alarming. They were entirely accurate and sometimes even understating what really was going on. Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring is a good example (you won't be able to cross-check some of it anymore since some newspapers went out of business a few years ago), but I assure you it stood up to fact checking.

Then there was Rathergate, CBS using phony documents to try to smear George W. Bush (there is no way the documents were genuine because the font style didn't exist when the document was supposedly created, and used variable spaced typing when it was supposedly created on a typewriter (which doesn't have variable spaced typing).

2006 The Israel/Lebanon conflict (I was in college studying computer graphics technology at the time), I was disgusted how much of the media was out and out lieing.



I actually found my economic views went further to the right as time went on. I found that while a lot of what the left says sounds when you listen to it, but when you look into the details you find something that it isn't what was advertised.



I don't think you are to the same degree, cause there have been several instances where I have known about things for months before someone here finally hears about it, I never bothered posting about it since you guys will simply say it isn't true because Fox News reported it.

Believe it or not, I used to watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I stopped watching them cause I got fed up with the lies, B.S. and blatent bias. Fox News isn't perfect, but they at least try to present both sides, and try to clearly label when they are giving their opinion.



I was actually hoping you would say that, because there is actually a backstory concerning this, which goes into why I don't trust the most of the media.

The New York Times or Time Magazine can't remember which off the top of my head had an article praising a domestic terrorist (I think you would know him, cause he sat on a board with Obama), anyways to make a long story short the paper/magazine with the article hit the shelf on 9/11/2001. We all remember what happened on 9/11/2001, anyways there was an enormous public backlash, especially in New York City, and as a result much of the media was extremely skittish after September 2001 all the way up through much of 2003.

To make a long story short, it wasn't because they liked Bush or Bush threatened them; it was cause the shear rage directed at them (particularly New York Times and/or Time Magazine) by the general public in New York City and elsewhere over that article terrified them. They were scared of the general public. Once they recovered from that, they went after Bush with such hatred, it seemed as though the media was deranged.



I think it is partially because Bush did what he thought had to be done to keep the country safe, and I really don't believe Bush liked doing it either. If you ever watched The Dark Knight, Bush actually seems to be like a portrayal of Batman, whom if you noticed wiretapped every cell phone in Gotham. At the end if you noticed at the end how the wiretapping got completely fried at the end because Batman had that built into the setup for the wiretapping, you see Bush's mindset.

You see a lot more thirst for power from Obama, than we ever saw from George W. Bush; while there are things Bush did that you don't agree with, Bush's objectives were about keeping another attack from happening. Obama seems to view conservatives as worse than Al Qaeda.



I don't care for Romney either, but I'm looking at this from the fact I do not believe Mitt Romney would have allowed the Department of Justice to conduct an operation like Fast & Furious (despite the lies from the Obama Administration, it wasn't a Bush Administration operation). If Holder was Romney's Attorney General, he would be sitting in a jail cell currently, and Romney would have thrown him in there.

There are also some other blatent abuses of power that I don't think Romney would have done and we both know Bush wouldn't have either. That's why I'm voting for Romney.



The reason I'm saying it is because it is true, not because it is conveinent rhetoric. Read Bernard Goldberg's books: Bias and Arrogance. Bernie Goldberg used to work at CBS, his first book Bias actually got him fired from CBS for exposing bias in the media.



While there is too many special interest groups, corporate greed isn't the driving force of corruption, what we have going on is a war of ideologies.



Vatnos, MSNBC has just become more transparently partisan, and more deranged as time went on.

Fox News makes an effort to present both sides, and a key mistake people make when comparing networks is they compare Sean Hannity to news anchors at other networks when Mr. Hannity is a commentator, not a news anchor.

A ran across a study a while back of when actual news programs were compared between networks (not the opinions shows, the news shows); it found that the two closest to the center were Fox News (right of center) and CNN (left of center), everyone else in broadcasting was actually way out in left field. The overwhelming majority of Journalists are registered democrats and/or ideologically liberal.



Compared to what, Europe or San Fran? Cause they sure as heck are not right of center compared to the average American.



Wrong, while they would like you to believe that, they aren't like Republicans back in the 1980s. If they were like Republicans in the 1980s, would they have tried to ignore Benghazi and Fast & Furious? Seriously, if they were like the Republicans in the 1980s, they would be going ballistic.



Actually Fox News is closer to the politcal center than you realize, where people make their mistake is that they compare political commentators on Fox News, to a News Anchor on another network. A political commentator is going to give opinions that's their job. If you want a fair comparison you need to look at Special Report with Bret Baier (news program) not the O'Reilly Factor (commentator) to evening News programs on other Networks.



I'm not suggesting any persecution here, I'm merely pointing out that Atheists do not have the right to persecute Christians and Jews (whom they normally target and often give Muslims a pass).



visagrunt already admitted it was taking place earlier in the thread in the same post that he denied it was happening.

It also happened with church ran adoption agencies.

As far as whom have been sued and targetted by homosexual groups, it has been exclusively directed towards attacking Churches. There may have been one or two instances involving synagogues but generally they are hesitant of being called anti-semetic bigots. They have left mosques alone, probably cause they don't want to be labeled an "islamophobe" or more cynically they don't want a jihad declared on them.

Perhaps I should have used a better word than facilities. I was meaning the church, synagogue, or Mosque building in itself, where marriages are conducted. Again, I ask, when have gays ever sued for not being allowed to get married there?
I have to admit, I have my doubts if that had ever happened, as marriage is a special day when you and the person you love are joined (presumably) for life. I don't believe someone is going to use that day for making a political statement, where the hosts are going to be looking on bitterly.

And on another topic - what makes San Francisco any less American than red states? Sure, there are cultural differences, but the people of San Francisco as just as much Americans. In fact, as blue states making up the west coast and the north east have much larger populations than the red states, and lead political and cultural trends, it can be argued that a place like San Francisco is actually more representative of mainstream America.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Renting a hall to members of the public is not a religious act, and there is no protection that arises from the first amendment as a result. Find me a precedent where a court has made a final judgement saying otherwise and we will talk.

But otherwise you are lying about the meaning of the first amendment.



Meanwhile you try to brand all liberals as intolerant.

Instead of diverting attention away from the lies and hypocrisy that you use to try to make your point, why not try to remain on topic.

So let's reduce this argument to a single issue:

Can you demonstrate that a congregation renting a hall to the public is a religious practice protected by the first amendment?

Leave all the other rhetoric aside and answer this one, simple question. Has a court (preferably, but not necessarily the Supreme Court) ever made a judgement that would protect this activity from public regulation?

Maybe you should heed your own advice then.


Then you just admitted the persecution of Christians that people like you were advocating. The building is still on church property, and the people they rented the building to were not doing anything considered to be morally objectionable. You are saying that the should either tear down the building or they have to give up their religion. I know what the left wing court idiots said, that doesn't mean they were correct. There is a reason why some left wing judges got recalled in Iowa; they crossed the line.



No, you just fail to understand that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.

I've taken Constitutional History, something I doubt you have, and I probably have a better understanding of the United States Constitution than you do.



And you are a perfect example of my point, visagrunt.



Actually there has been a ruling recently that has started to get the ball rolling.

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches — not courts — are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired. The Blaze originally covered this story in October.

But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.

It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a so-called “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme ... mination/#

We also see numerous churches suing over forced abortion coverage in Obamacare.

We also have the fact that some Iowa Justices were recalled after some rulings and I suspect what they did will be overturned by voters.

If you can demonstrate that what I have posted is untrue, you may rest assured that I shall.

All you have done is demonstrate that you don't agree with me. But you have failed to demonstrate that anything that I have posted is false.




I have admitted nothing of the sort.

There is nothing inherent in the act of holding property that makes a building "religious." If a congregation uses a building for the purpose of holding religious services, then clearly, the character of the building has changed. But that's not the case here. In the case that you are trying to hang your hat on, the congregation held the building--at least in part--for the purpose of renting it to members of the public.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that they have to tear the building down. I'm saying that they have to stop renting it in the marketplace. They can keep it private, and use it exclusively for the purposes of the congregation. That would protect it as an exclusively private building. They could rent it only to members of the congregation. That would also protect it as exclusively private. They could refuse to rent it for all weddings. That would mean that no couple could use it for that purpose, whether same sex or opposite sex.

But as soon as the congregation offered the building for rent to members of the public to use for weddings, they cannot then restrict the types of weddings permitted.



Then you should ask for a tuition refund.

While you have studied constitutional history, I have studied constitutional law--study which included US constitutional law. From a legal perspective, your assertion is meaningless, and I think wholly contradicted by the majority opinion in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) 512 U.S. 687. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html)



How so? You are a jumped up, opinionated, ignorant, callow, partisan fool. But not only do I tolerate your so-called contribution to this forum, I do you the respect of engaging with you on the substance (such as it is) of your posts.

I tolerate you far more than your posts merit.



I agree, it is getting the ball rolling.

And in doing so it is [i]protecting religious institutions by saying that religious workers cannot sue.

So what this judgement does is reinforce my position: So long as religious institutions confine themselves to religious activity, they are privileged against the application of general statutes.

However, when religious institution go outside the boundaries of religious activity, then their employees and their clients are in a position to enforce statutes of general application against them.

A priest in a church is a religious worker. A doctor in a hospital is--in my personal opinion--not a religious worker. The priest cannot sue for employment discrimination; the doctor can.

A building used for the purpose of worship services is a protected building. A building used to earn money through rental to members of the public is not (in the opinion of the courts).

My hypothetical scenario still stands. I'm still waiting to hear your counterargument to it. I'd like to hear some sort of defense for this view of yours other than "it is my religious freedom to take away other people's freedoms, and preventing me from doing so is persecution". For the Nth time, your rights do not override someone else's rights. Banning gay marriage forces atheists and Christian sects who support gay marriage to abide by your religious beliefs. It establishes a state religion--something the first amendment explicitly forbids. It is favoritism, and if you're opposed to religious favoritism, you would stop pushing for this.


The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. That humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is indisputable. The relationship between CO2 and planetary climate is strongly supported by historical climate data. There is no other explanation for the abundance of CO2 or the increase in mean planetary temperatures. If you're convinced that the reason the science is so one-sided is that there is a vast scientific conspiracy, there's little I can do to convince you otherwise. If someone has no trust in the scientific field, then it doesn't matter whether they think the stars in the sky are fairies or lost souls. It doesn't matter how much evidence you might have that suggests they're giant balls of plasma undergoing nuclear reactions, you'll never get through to someone who places disproportionate weight on paranoid delusions over physical evidence.


Go on, elaborate.


I don't have time to go through the rest of your post and pick apart every single thing that's wrong, because I have a job, and a life, and I think the longer I make my post, the less likely anyone is to read any of it. So I'll go section by section to keep the posts from becoming massive quote walls.

Back during the civil rights era, southern whites used to say giving blacks rights would infringe on theirs. Of course, no such thing ever happened.
And no, Inuyasha, I'm not calling you a racist.
As for global warming, I've noticed that the people who question it are the same ones who are suspicious of science regardless, especially when it comes to the age of the earth ranging into the billions (rather than in the mere thousands), and of course, are critical of evolution.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer, maybe you should stop drinking the kool-aid, cause you insulted me again. I actually do have a scientific/engineering/technical background. I've actually read into some of the reasoning as to why the global warming data might not be entirely accurate, and actually their reasoning was sound.

Thermometers being placed on blacktop, by the exhaust of an oven/AC/etc. are not going to give an accurate reading for instance.

I've actually read about shannigans on both sides, so I think everything has to be scrapped and started over.

Does it matter which side is correct?

I am rather of the view that weaning ourselves off of petroleum as a source of energy makes good sense economically, and from the perspective of the national security interest inherent in stable, sustainable and secure sources of energy.

Even if anthropogenic climate change is a complete load of foetid dingo's kidneys, I still believe that the case can be made for reducing dependency on fossil fuels. So why argue about whether the IPCC practices good science or not, and instead get on with the job of supporting innovation.