Hahahahah ... well played, sir!

Naaaw, I just wanted to tell you how appreciated you are around here...

"Just for that, I'll let you get the last word."
"Thank you."
"You're welcome"
-M*A*S*H

:D

Michale

:)

-David

Yes, we are...

But, it's not the destination, it's the journey..

And how I miss traveling with you :D

Michale

Why ‘religious freedom’ laws *COULD* be a license to discriminate

Emphasis mine..

So, yes.. Those laws COULD be used for discrimination. But, the law, in and of itself, is NOT discrimination..

Now, if you flip it around and create a law that forces christians to do things that violates their religious beliefs, then there is no "COULD" about it.

It WILL violate the rights of christians' religious freedoms...

It's YOUR proposal that is legalized discrimination.

Not the laws you are fighting against...

Michale

We're not talking about the law.

If we were, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on because it's the LAW in AZ that businesses have the right to refuse service.

What we are talking about it what is morally right and morally wrong.

And it's JUST as morally wrong to refuse to buy a Romney supporter a beer as it is morally wrong to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple..

It's that simple...

Michale

Not true. Conservatives and Christians are equal under the law too!

My issue is that the laws being proposed in not just Arizona, but across the country would legalize discrimination. Ohio has their own version.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-or-discrimination

Alas, we're likely going to have to disagree. Take care, Michale!

-David

But the issue (MY issue) isn't the law..

But if you WANT to address the law, then the law in Arizona states that private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

THAT is the law. And THAT is how it should be..

Michale

Exactly my point.

You don't SEE any discrimination in what has happened to conservatives..

Even though it is text-book definitions of discrimination..

No one's trying to create laws to legislate discrimination against conservatives or Christians though.

And no one is trying to create laws to allow discrimination against gay people..

But the issue (MY issue) isn't the law..

MY issue is why you and everyone else is selective in combating discrimination..

You can't even admit that discrimination exists other than when it is against politically acceptable entities..

Michale

But not until then...

Let me amend that.

Obviously, ya'all have the right and the freedom to complain about ANYTHING..

I wasn't infringing on that whatsoever..

But, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, then you need to be consistent in your condemnations..

Otherwise, it stands out as nothing but ideologically based spin and not a sincere condemnation of discrimination..

Michale

I would if there were any.

No one's trying to create laws to legislate discrimination against conservatives or Christians though.

It's weird though that you think somehow this is all about politics.

-David

And yet, our POTUS didn't get in trouble for discriminating against a Romney supporter..

And yet, the IRS was able to target conservatives and discriminate against them w/o any consequences..

And so on and so on and so on....

When ya'all start condemning the discrimination that occurs against conservatives and christians, THEN you can complain about the discrimination against gay people..

But not until then...

Michale

Conservatives and Christians are equally protected against discrimination under the law.

-David

In the here and now, discrimination can be rational, understandable and even acceptable...

It all depends on the person and how they look at things...

I have provided many examples of this fact..

So, since it IS fact that discrimination can be rational, understandable and even acceptable, if one TRIES to view things from another's perspective they will discover that things aren't necessarily as they appear on the surface...

Michale..

And which "law" would that be??

That, as a business, you MUST serve all comers to the exclusion of ANY OTHER factor??

I don't recall seeing that law on the books anywhere..

Perhaps you could point it out to me.. :D

Michale

Of course, that should read:

And being gay falls into NONE of those categories..

:D

Michale

And being gay falls into any of those categories..

Unless you want to change to read:

The law of the land which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, who you want to have sex WITH, creed, or age.

Kinda unweildy, don'tcha think??

Not to mention our Declaration of Independence which established that "All Men are Created Equal". (Though it sure did take a while for women and others to gain equal rights.)

And yet, no one here has a problem with Obama's beer stunt or the IRS targeting conservatives.

Two of HUNDREDS of examples of conservatives being discriminated against and no one here said 'boo' about it..

So, I guess we're going to have to alter THAT statement to read:

"All Men are Created Equal, except for conservatives"

You fail to acknowledge one simple fact.

In the here and now, discrimination CAN be reasonable, understandable and even acceptable..

In this case, the ONLY determining factor to cry "DISCRIMINATION" is the ideological bent of the cry'ees....

Michale

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If you allow one religion to discriminate against people based on a "religious belief" you are in a sense making the doctrine of that religious belief superior to the law of the land.

This is how the Supreme Court has decided cases when there is a clash between some religion and federal law.

The law of the land which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, creed, or age.

Not to mention our Declaration of Independence which established that "All Men are Created Equal". (Though it sure did take a while for women and others to gain equal rights.)

-David

"Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are!"
-James Woods, THE HARD WAY

:D

Michale

What "right" are you referring to??

The "right" to have a gay wedding cake made by Redneck Cakes Inc???

I have read the Constitution. I don't see anything like that in there..

When you care about the rights of others as much as you do your own.

Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's selfishness.

So, I *HAVE* to sell an asshole with an I LOVE AL QAEDA t-shirt a laptop or I am selfish??

Being gay or black or Caucasian or male/female is how you are born.

Bullshit to the first..

Being gay is what you do, not who you are..

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant to the charge of discrimination.

You CHOOSE to be a Christian, Muslim or whatever. Yet religion is a protected group..

Even if someone CHOOSES to be a Republican or Democrat, when they are discriminated against, it's STILL (according to your definition) discrimination.

But, the political ideology of the label'er determines whether or not it is acceptable discrimination..

Like Obama's beer stunt. Like the IRS targeting of conservative groups..

Pure discrimination...

Yet, no one said 'boo' here over them..

Why not??

Because, for the Left, it's acceptable to discriminate against the Right.

But gods help whoever discriminates against someone on the Left, eh? :D

Michale

In your examples, wearing an al Qaeda t-shirt is an action you have control over. Being Democrat or Republican is something you choose.

Being gay or black or Caucasian or male/female is how you are born.

This is an important distinction when talking about discrimination.

-David

You do have the right to your beliefs.

The piece you're leaving out, however, is "so long as those beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others".

This is true freedom.

When you care about the rights of others as much as you do your own.

Otherwise, it's not freedom. It's selfishness.

-David

The evidence is overwhelming here that discrimination is not the issue.

The issue here is discrimination against a group that the Left finds politically acceptable and supports the Left's political agenda..

A group, I might add, whose ONLY parameter is based solely and completely on who they are sexually attracted to..

How whacked is THAT??

Michale

But that is not what we are talking about here..

No one is talking about putting any kind of sign up.

We're simply talking about the freedom for businesses to refuse service to persons/groups that they find offensive..

And that's what I'm against. Being able to discriminate against a class of people based solely on their skin color or sex or race. This is what discrimination is.

I would agree.

But that is not what we are discussing here.

We're discussing being able to discriminate against a person or group that said business finds personally or religiously offensive.

If you are a travel agent and a group comes in and asks you to book a flight to Bangkok because they are going there to have sex with underage boys, you would refuse to help them.

By YOUR definition, you are committing discrimination...

Even if it's accurate, would you care?? Would anyone fault you??

If someone comes into my computer shop wearing a T-Shirt that says, I LOVE AL QAEDA, guess what? I am going to throw them out.

Am I discriminating against them?

Maybe..

But, again.. Who cares??

You run a political action group that helps elect politicians to office. You put up a sign that says you only help Democrats..

Is that discrimination? By your definition, yes...

But, would you care?? Of course not..

I could go on and on, giving you example after example of how "discrimination" is sometimes rational, understandable and even acceptable..

That's my only point..

If AZ was putting up a law that says businesses have a right to refuse service to conservatives, ya'all would be falling all over yourselves to support that law...

This is evidenced by the IRS scandal, Obama's childish and immature beer moment and tons and tons of other evidence of "discrimination" against conservatives.. Discrimination that none of ya'all ever had a problem with..

I'm curious though. Do you think you're better than other people, Michale?

Some, abso-frakin'-loutly...

Which is why I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're arguing that some people are.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that, in America, Americans have the RIGHT to their beliefs. And the right to live their lives and run their businesses according to those beliefs...

If Acme Travel doesn't want to help a group of perverts book a trip to Bangkok because Acme Travel find the actions of the group to be morally unacceptable, Acme Travel HAS THAT RIGHT...

If Acme Cakes doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple because they find the actions of the gay people to be morally unacceptable, Acme Cakes HAVE THAT RIGHT...

Two examples of "discrimination".

No one here would fault Acme Travel for their actions.

But everyone here would condemn Acme Cakes for the exact same action.

Why??

Solely and completely because of political ideology...

I can't make it any plainer than that..

Michale

If I put a sign up at my financial company that said "We don't serve conservatives" I would be discriminating against conservatives.

If I put up a sign that said "We don't serve white rednecks" I would be discriminating.

If I put up a sign that said "We don't serve gays" I would be discriminating.

And that's what I'm against. Being able to discriminate against a class of people based solely on their skin color or sex or race. This is what discrimination is.

The laws I'm for protect everyone.

I'm curious though. Do you think you're better than other people, Michale?

You've never struck me as this kind of person. Which is why I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're arguing that some people are.

-David

It all depends on one's ideological outlook..

Michale

Yet, you want to FORCE people to "take the job" that might not want to...

What I can't do is put up a sign that says "No gays (or blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Christians, etc.) allowed."

What we are discussing has absolutely NOTHING to do with that..

Sorry, Michale. Your analogy has nothing to do with discrimination. If I put up a sign that says "We don't serve Christians." you'd be getting closer.

It has EVERYTHING to do with discrimination.

You would be discriminating against conservatives when you refused to take the job.

Just like Obama was discriminating against Romney supporters when he bought beers for everyone BUT the Romney guy.

Just like Obama's IRS was discriminating against conservatives when the targeted conservative tax-exempt groups..

Ya'all don't have an issue with discrimination..

YA'ALL only have a problem with discrimination against politically acceptable groups..

And THAT is discrimination right there...

Michale

[Ed. Note: Fixed. Sorry, busy with FTP right now... -CW]

I can take this job if I want to or not. If I want the money or Limbaugh to win I can. If not, I can choose not to. Taking or not taking the job has nothing to do with discrimination.

What I can't do is put up a sign that says "No gays (or blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Christians, etc.) allowed."

Discrimination is when you refuse to serve an entire group just because that group is black, or gay, or women, or Republican.

Sorry, Michale. Your analogy has nothing to do with discrimination. If I put up a sign that says "We don't serve Christians." you'd be getting closer.

-David

p.s. By moral depravity do you mean that they think somehow their shit stinks less than everyone else's?

If so, all I see are self-righteous idiots. Not sure why you're so keen on defending them. Is it because they vote Republican?

It must be COMEDY NIGHT at the White House...

OBAMA WARNS RUSSIA OF 'COSTS' IN UKRAINE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_RUSSIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-28-17-18-37

Obama has issued another red line...

Putin is quaking in his boots... From laughter...

NOTE: I know I should have waited for tomorrow to post this. But I am not sure what my weekend will hold, so......

Michale

For the record, I am not saying that any group under discussion is morally depraved...

I am simply saying that one group has a sincere and deep-held belief that another group is morally depraved...

And *I* respect that belief, even if I don't agree with it...

And, honestly, I seem to be the only one here who feels that way...

Michale

That would ask the following question.

Is it possible to have a MORAL objection that would prevent an otherwise reasonable and rational person from wanting to provide goods and/or services to another person..

Is that possible?? And is it reasonable??

Michale

"Hay, David. I gotta make a million bucks in the coming month so I can fund the campaign and insure that Rush Limbaugh is elected our next POTUS. If you make me that million, I can GUARANTEE that Rush Limbaugh will be our next POTUS!!"

Do you take take the job and make certain that Limbaugh is our next POTUS??

Or do you respectfully tell them to shove it up their collective asses and take their business elsewhere??

"What do you do? What DO you do?"
-Keannu Reeves, SPEED

Ain't so black and white now, is it? :D

Michale

But they DO have the right to legislate acceptance...

How is that any different??

Example 1: I can hate you all I want but I can't use that hatred to deny you service.

No??

Did you condemn the IRS when they "denied" service to conservative groups??

No, you did not...

You see the point?

Discrimination is perfectly acceptable as long as the people being discriminated against are politically or ideologically undesirable...

Again, the problem here is one of tolerance..

Saying that one group of people MUST provide service to ANY group, regardless of the moral depravity of said group is discrimination against that group..

But discrimination and bigotry is fine.. As long as it's against people who are undesirable...

Either you are against discrimination PERIOD or you are not..

Michale

Umm. No.

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

Do Americans have the RIGHT to hate other people?

Sure. I have no problem with that.

What they don't have is the right to legislate their hatred into law so they can act on it in ways that infringe upon other peoples' rights.

Example 1: I can hate you all I want but I can't use that hatred to deny you service.

Example 2: I can hate you all I want but this doesn't give me the right to shoot you.

Freedom doesn't mean people can do whatever the hell they want whenever they want just because they have some belief that tells them they can.

Can you imagine what our society would look like if it did?

-David

Do Americans have the RIGHT to hate other people??

To hate other groups of people??

Michale

Why should people hold other people's beliefs more sacred than their own??

Especially RELIGIOUS beliefs..

How would you feel if you were forced to hold REPUBLICAN beliefs before your OWN beliefs??

THAT's the point..

It's not the beliefs themselves... It's that people are being FORCED to supplant their religious beliefs with the beliefs of the state...

I'll ask again for the umpteenth time..

WHERE is the tolerance???

Heheh. Not at all. I can disagree with people without hating them.

Yes, YOU can.. Me too...

But we are the exceptions that emphasis the rule..

I refer you to the rank and file who call people "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "criminals" SOLELY because of a different ideological belief..

You want to see the hate??

Look around...

If ya'all want tolerance, then BE tolerant..

If ya'all want respect, then BE respectful...

Doesn't that make sense??

Michale

Heheh. Not at all. I can disagree with people without hating them.

It's actually pretty easy.

-David

No.

Why would some people's beliefs be "better" than others?

And who determines whose beliefs are better?

I mean, I'd like to believe that I'm superior and much better than everyone else but it's quite likely that other people are going to call me on it. :)

-David

Now, if YOU were the boss, you would be free to refuse service to those you didn't like.

If you were POTUS, you could even buy beers for the house, except for the guy holding the Romney sign...

YOU have freedom of choice...

Now, how would you feel if it was made MANDATORY that, in your widget shop, you would HAVE to serve, under penalty of law, the guy that walks in with the OBAMA IS A MUSLIM KENYAN T-Shirt holding an I LOVE RUSH sign...

You would be a tad perturbed that you were FORCED to service such an obvious degenerate...

No???

Michale

Can you allow that there are people who are more deeply into their beliefs??

I mean, I am not. I am as agnostic as they come..

But *I* understand that people feel differently about things then I do.

*I* give them the respect and tolerance to feel that way...

It's called having a job.

And your job is dictated by your boss.. And if your boss tells you that you will NOT serve a group of people that he is vehemently opposed to, then you follow his orders or you quit...

Once again, what is afoot here is that religious people are being FORCED to accept a lifestyle that they are a religious objection to.

When it comes to tolerance and respect, the Left is all about that.. But ONLY with people who think as they do...

If ya'all HAD tolerance and respect, you would at least TRY to see things from the other people's point of view instead of just writing them off as hate-mongering bigots...

I'm just sayin'...

Michale

I have to deal with people I religiously disagree with every day.

It's called having a job.

Fortunately most Christians I know aren't nearly as idiotic as the pundits out there claiming victimhood.

Religious freedom means you're free to practice your religion. It doesn't mean your religious beliefs trump the laws of our country.

-David

It did nothing of the sort..

But, as I stated, ya'all do not have the moral foundation from which to complain about the legislation, even if it DID do what you claim it does...

Michale

The bill vetoed by the Governor was an end run subverting gay rights legislation on the books in population centers Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson. Similar end run legislation is being introduced in many other states.

The AZ bill permitted statewide discrimination by allowing personal religious convictions to determine who was, or was not worthy of receiving goods and services. Sealing SB 1062 can of worms was a victory for tolerance, so I'll accept your congrats.

If you look at the facts and ignore the Leftist spin, you would realize that there was NOTHING discriminatory about the AZ bill, "very" or otherwise..

Basically, ya'all are celebrating that the Left gets to be discriminatory towards religious people..

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Congrats.. :^/

Michale

Scalia's need to whine in his dissent gave fodder to every justice in the country who would have liked to overturn the bans and even to ones who didn't want to but agreed with the dissenting logic.