Why is the left so intolerant?
Both sides are intolerant. As for who was intolerant first, there's no concrete answer to that.
After someone walks into a Kosher Deli and demands a ham sandwich and is not served, have they been discriminated against?
It depends on the reason they weren't served.
If someone goes to a custom t-shirt shop operated by Muslims and orders a t-shirt printed with an image of The Prophet Mohammed depicted in an in unfavorable manner and the shop refuses to print it, has the customer been discriminated against?
No, because printing the image of Mohamed is a direct violation of Islamic beliefs. Working with homosexuals, even at a religious ceremony like a gay wedding, is NOT any type of violation of Christian beliefs - only performing a gay act is a violation.
If a woman refuses to have unprotected sex with someone with HIV/AIDS, should that women be sued for discrimination?
No, because she would most likely die. Catering a gay wedding does not violate any Christian beliefs, nor would it kill someone.
I think your posts are funny. You help us Liberals more than you could ever imagine. I just feel bad for the other conservatives on this site who abondon threads because they don't want to associate with you.
[Edited on 4/7/2015 by BoytonBrother]
_____________________________________________________________________
It is not intolerance to refuse to break your faith.
Homosexuals cannot marry and participating in a homosexual wedding does violate Christian beliefs.
It depends on the reason they weren't served?
Who would be the arbiter to resolve such a situation?
Nor would you find ham in a Kosher Deli. It is like going into an Apple Store and demanding a PC.
The liberals would run down the street screaming discrimination while a normal person would tell both the ham sandwich and PC demanding person that they are idiots.
According to the left the Muslims would be discriminating by not printing the shirt.
I you own a sign shop and The Westbury Baptist Church ordered a quantity of “God hates Fags” signs would you print them?
Interesting article from the Chicago Tribune today - link is to the full article, below is an excerpt....
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/04/04/analysis-religious-freedom-efforts-backfire/
In Indiana, they added a provision that says religious liberty is not an excuse for a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The abrupt turnaround may not be the final word on gay rights and religious freedom, but it revealed an emerging consensus on a principle of national equality: Businesses that are open to the public must be open to all and may not discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation.
So rather than expand the scope of religious liberty, as conservatives had intended, the battles in Indiana and Arkansas instead accelerated the push for civil rights protections for gays and lesbians.
“Nothing concentrates the mind like a threat,” said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor. “What happened last week made clear there is very influential support — cultural and political — in favor of equality for gay people. You have academics, business, one political party and now sports on the side of the equality,” he said.
Franke said she saw some irony in the outcome, noting that in Indiana — before the recent flap — there were no legal protections against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
“It had been perfectly legal in Indiana to fire someone who is gay or deny them service. And religious liberty was doing just fine,” she said. But by trying to “fix a problem that wasn’t broken,” she said, Indiana’s fumbling lawmakers gave a national boost to the cause of gay equality.
[Edited on 4/7/2015 by Sang]
It is not intolerance to refuse to break your faith.
I'm a Christian. It is not breaking our faith to cater a gay wedding. The Bible only states that performing a gay act is a sin.
Homosexuals cannot marry and participating in a homosexual wedding does violate Christian beliefs.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong about this. It is simply not a violation of Christian values to associate/work at a gay wedding. The only sin is to perform a gay act.
It depends on the reason they weren't served?
Who would be the arbiter to resolve such a situation?
A judge, per the laws of our Constitution.
Nor would you find ham in a Kosher Deli. It is like going into an Apple Store and demanding a PC.
LOL. You are too much. It's not the same at all because the pizzeria does indeed cater weddings. The Kosher deli and the Apple store don't sell those products to anyone for any reason, because they don't make them.
The liberals would run down the street screaming discrimination while a normal person would tell both the ham sandwich and PC demanding person that they are idiots.
Some might I guess.
I you own a sign shop and The Westbury Baptist Church ordered a quantity of “God hates Fags” signs would you print them?
No, because I would have a policy that prohibits the printing of anything derogatory to any person or group based on age, gender, sex, race, nationality, religion, sexual preference, and any other protected class written in the Constitution. Since I would have the policy established from day one, a court would allow my refusal based on the store policy, applying to everyone. And it's "Westboro", not "Westbury" you moron.
The intolerant liberal’s lies about the Indiana RFRA law debunked:
Indiana Backlash Shows Left’s Hatred for First Amendment
The Associated Press – 30 Mar 2015
In the wake of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the media have been stacking myth upon myth in order to drive the narrative that right-wingers desperately want to harm gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives merely want to protect a basic notion of freedom from the tyranny of the left: the notion that individual rights, even those exercised in ways we would not always like, are still rights. Those rights extend to your conduct of your own business, given that there are no externalities – and refusal to engage in a voluntary transaction does not amount to an externality. That is the essence of liberty.
Here are the top myths pushed by the media left in the wake of the RFRA:
RFRA Discriminates Against Gays. No, the RFRA does not. The RFRA is explicitly designed to protect practice of any religion. It says that “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” That can be overridden if the government’s action “is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is also “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” If government does act against someone in violation of their religious principles, that person or entity can assert that violation “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.” So, if you are a Muslim, and you want to wear a beard while a police officer, the RFRA protects you. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness and you don’t want to get a blood transfusion in violation of law, the RFRA protects you.
The reason many on the left believe the RFRA discriminates against homosexuals is because homosexuals have sued private religious businessowners for refusing to service same-sex weddings. The RFRA protects such religious businessowners from antidiscrimination laws – although Indiana has no such antidiscrimination laws with regard to sexual orientation anyway. So Indiana’s law has not even changed one iota with regard to private businessowners’ treatment of homosexuals, let alone gay marriage (refusing to service a same-sex wedding is not the same as refusing to serve someone gay, by the way).
RFRA Is a Republican Plot. No, it is not. The original federal RFRA was passed in 1993, signed by Bill Clinton, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill passed the United States House of Representatives unanimously, and the Senate 97-3. It was co-sponsored by probable incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In 1998, then-State Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for a similar law. It passed unanimously 56-0.
This Is Like Jim Crow. No, it is not. Jim Crow was a mandatory set of regulations springing from the government – the same government the left now wants to use to discriminate against religious people for failing their tolerance test. Alabama’s Jim Crow law explicitly prevented private businessowners from serving blacks at its lunch counters:
It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.
The same homosexual advocates and allies who want to use the government as a club to beat those who engage in certain voluntary conduct were surely against that tactic when the government was discriminating against homosexual conduct.
This Will Allow Discrimination Against Blacks, Too. No, it won’t. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents such discrimination. The supremacy clause means the Civil Rights Act trumps state law. It is worth noting that the Constitution itself should not permit the federal government to intervene with regard to private businesses involved in making judgments about whether to engage in certain voluntary transactions, no matter the excuse for that refusal.
In a free society, we understand that societal disapproval of activity does not, on its own, justify violation of individual rights. But not the left, which is happy to bring a gun to the party, just so long as it is the party wielding the gun.
It is a matter of being forced cater to homosexuals while being forced to go against your religious beliefs.
No one should be forced by a government to give up their Constitutional Rights and Religious Beliefs to cater to homosexuals.
The discrimination in this matter is against people who are exercising their faith.
By this line of reasoning, which totally ignores the constitution of the United States and it's prohibition against serving people based on the basis of :
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender
Marital status
National origin
Race
Religion
Sexual orientation.
If you allow refusal of services based on sexual orientation, you would then also have to allow refusal of services based on inclusion in any of these other groups, including religious beliefs. Are you okay with Christians being refused services because they are Christians? I'm not.
The intolerant liberal’s lies about the Indiana RFRA law debunked:
Indiana Backlash Shows Left’s Hatred for First Amendment
The Associated Press – 30 Mar 2015In the wake of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
Mr. Mule is now making up his own news stories it looks like. this is a Breibart story by Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News , not an AP story.
LOL no wonder he didn't post the link.
The intolerant liberal’s lies about the Indiana RFRA law debunked:
Indiana Backlash Shows Left’s Hatred for First Amendment
The Associated Press – 30 Mar 2015In the wake of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
Mr. Mule is now making up his own news stories it looks like. this is a Breibart story by Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News , not an AP story.
LOL no wonder he didn't post the link.
Shocker. #notsurprised
It is a matter of being forced cater to homosexuals while being forced to go against your religious beliefs.
No one should be forced by a government to give up their Constitutional Rights and Religious Beliefs to cater to homosexuals.
The discrimination in this matter is against people who are exercising their faith.
c'mon man, don't you know your Bible? We're surrounded by sin. Jesus Himself said, "I have not come to be served but to serve". So...any owner should a) serve any and all, b)take their money while they're at it 😉 , c) it gives them the opportunity to witness while at the same time, d) making anyone who has to be "subjected" to being witnessed to think again about going back their for their cookies. It's a win, win, win, win situation... 
Proverbs 25:21 If your "enemy" is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him drink, in so doing it will be like pouring burning coals on his head and the Lord will reward you". In other words, be kind to everyone, even those who hate you. That's the where one of the many phrases we use to this day comes from..."Kill 'em with kindness".
The article is straight off The A/P news wire service.
Many newspapers and news services print/report A/P articles.
Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t make the facts wrong.
The left-wing media is hyping this matter as a “refusal to serve” issue which it is not.
The hypocrisy of the liberals is laughable.
Tim Cook of Apple expressed his outrage while of course selling his products in Muslim nations that execute homosexuals.
Yea, he is outraged as long as he gets paid.
Where is the liberals support for religious freedom?
That's a column at breitbart.com. "The Associated Press" is the photo credit at the breitbart site.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/indiana-backlash-shows-lefts-hatred-for-first-amendment/
This is the AP News Wire: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME?SITE=AP A search there for "Ben Shapiro" returns one story (at a dead link) called "KEVIN BACON AND EGGS; ACTOR STARS IN EGG INDUSTRY CAMPAIGN"
The AP usually puts the word "Analysis" to start off a headline when the story is opinion, analysis, written like a column, etc.
As to the Shapiro piece itself, it matches a lot of the right wing talking points that were being used when the heat of the argument was raging.
The bill has since been amended, and anyone on the right that went to the wall defending Indiana GOP lawmakers should probably now focus their rage at the bill being amended, because apparently, according to Mr. Shapiro and others, there was nothing wrong with it to begin with.
That's a column at breitbart.com. "The Associated Press" is the photo credit at the breitbart site.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/indiana-backlash-shows-lefts-hatred-for-first-amendment/This is the AP News Wire: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME?SITE=AP A search there for "Ben Shapiro" returns one story (at a dead link) called "KEVIN BACON AND EGGS; ACTOR STARS IN EGG INDUSTRY CAMPAIGN"
The AP usually puts the word "Analysis" to start off a headline when the story is opinion, analysis, written like a column, etc.
As to the Shapiro piece itself, it matches a lot of the right wing talking points that were being used when the heat of the argument was raging.
The bill has since been amended, and anyone on the right that went to the wall defending Indiana GOP lawmakers should probably now focus their rage at the bill being amended, because apparently, according to Mr. Shapiro and others, there was nothing wrong with it to begin with.
________________________________________________________________________
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Try as you may, the article is factually correct.
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Another "we have to hate" gig of the week for the liberals that may them look stupid and will cost them votes in 2016.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
[Edited on 4/7/2015 by Muleman1994]
I you own a sign shop and The Westbury Baptist Church ordered a quantity of “God hates Fags” signs would you print them?
As Jon Stewart so keenly stated, it's really f'ed up for someone to equate an evil hate-group like the Westboro Baptist Church with a loving gay couple that just wants to get married.
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........
Or spell, read, use punctuation, comprehend, etc.
quote:
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........Or spell, read, use punctuation, comprehend, etc.
But he knows how to troll.
Hard to tell where the liberals stand other than they support homosexuals demanding Christians violate their beliefs.
No.
Who give a crap if other states have the same bigoted law? It doesn't matter if Indiana is the one state being singled out right now. I heard some conservative pundit go off on a rant about why liberals aren't attacking the other states that have the same law. The answer is simple....because those stories weren't publicized. And thanks to the conservatives for pointing it out, because now those other states might start facing the same heat.
Yup.
I asked a cop once why he wasn't pulling over other speeding drivers around me? He replied...it was your day to be noticed.
quote:
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........Or spell, read, use punctuation, comprehend, etc.
But he knows how to troll.
_______________________________________________________________________
Coming from a racist like you your opinion means nothing to me.
You're not even a good troll. It's obvious you don't believe what you write. You need some lessons about how to be more discreet with your motives.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........Or spell, read, use punctuation, comprehend, etc.
But he knows how to troll.
_______________________________________________________________________
Coming from a racist like you your opinion means nothing to me.
No worries Mule. I won't be bothered by bigoted, small minded, black hearted, soulless, vile, putrid, stinking piles of pig excrement's opinions anyways.
(I hope I got the punctuation right.)
Once again mule shows he doesn't understand the issue..... nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything..... and he also shows he can't answer a question..........
________________-________________________________________________________
"nobody is asking anyone to convert to anything."
If you can't see the point of the cartoon you live in the shallow end of the pool.
It does require thought which is probably where you failed.
And as to "can't answer a question" - it isn't a matter of can't, it is that i won't do the basic research for people who are either to lazy or incapable.
And no, Christians will not violate their religious beliefs to the demands of homosexuals.
Get over it sweet pea.
Wrong. Again.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
Oh please, others might get a little nasty, but they are not trolls. Muleman is in a class of his own.....just a troll looking to start trouble, and doesn't believe the crap that comes out of his own mouth. The others you mention are probably serious, but get out of hand sometimes. Big difference.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
I really was just trying to clarify the cite of a source...:P
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
Several others here just as bad or worse, but they share your political views so no need to call them out?
Noticed this in the South Carolina thread too. There are like 6 members here that act stupid here but only the 2 conservatives get called out.
Just keeping it real.
I would count you as one of the "several others" as all you seem to do is troll the threads and call people out like this and stalk jkeller.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
I really was just trying to clarify the cite of a source...:P
And I'm sure you noticed that was pointless exercise.
