sd72
11 years ago
Oh, he's got the inside track on this one.
DrafterX
11 years ago
Victor prolly Snopesed it..... 😟
wheelrite
11 years ago

by that logic, wouldn't being so sure that homosexuality isn't a choice also require some inside knowledge that you don't have?

opelmanta1900 wrote:



Vic has Homo Knowledge,,,

wheel,
HockeyDad
11 years ago

I've always been confused why people think homosexuality is a "choice". To be so sure that they are "choosing" to be gay, you must have some inside knowledge that I don't have.

victor809 wrote:




If it wasn't a choice wouldn't we have some kind of Susan G Komen Race for the Cure events to try to correct the biological abnormality?
ZRX1200
11 years ago
BEN SHAPIRO
31 Mar 2015
501
The tolerant left has now decided that anybody who believes in freedom of religion ought to be boycotted. CEOs and government leaders are threatening to boycott the state of Indiana–and not just governmental entities in Indiana, but private businesses in Indiana that have never discriminated against anyone homosexual, let alone same-sex weddings. But these same CEOs and government leaders will happily do business with some of the worst regimes on earth–regimes that do not merely recognize the right of private businessowners to do business with the clients they choose, but that sponsor the state-sanctioned execution of homosexuals.

On Sunday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that his company would “never tolerate discrimination.” He then compared Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Jim Crow; he equated a law guaranteeing the rights of individuals to take part in only the transactions they want to a law forcing individuals to take part in only those transactions the government deems worthy. But Cook is happy to do business with and in Saudi Arabia, as Erick Erickson points out, as well as Uganda, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. All of those countries are quite unfriendly to homosexuals.

Other companies looking to boycott Indiana include Smallbox, Salesforce, and Angie’s List; particularly, they want to disassociate from businesses headquartered in Indiana. Yet all of these companies work with businesses with outlets in places like Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death.

The cities of Seattle and San Francisco also want to boycott Indiana. Yet in 2007, Edward Burton, president and managing director of the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council, went to Washington to meet with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle, and the Rotary Club of Seattle. The Trade Development Alliance is comprised of “a partnership of the Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Port of Everett, Metropolitan King County Government, Snohomish County Government, Pierce County Government, City of Seattle, City of Everett, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and union leadership.” The Trade Development Alliance is slated to hold an event on April 22 touting doing business in Iran, where gays are hung from cranes. San Francisco, meanwhile, is a location for significant Saudi holdings, including the historic Fairmont San Francisco Hotel. While San Francisco once considered pulling investments in Russian companies, it declined to do so. Currently, the San Francisco Global Trade Council includes Dmitry Beskurnikov of the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the USA; the Council says it routinely performs “missions to Cuba, Russia, and China” and partners with the “Mayor’s Office of International Trade and Commerce.”

The state of Connecticut, under Governor Dannel Malloy, wants to boycott Indiana, too. Connecticut already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So do 17 other states around the country, none of which have been targeted for boycott.
sd72
11 years ago
What's wrong with you jamie? Only middle 'merica is required to be moral.
ZRX1200
11 years ago
I just like sparring now and then

I respect homosexuals being homosexuals and Christians being Christians, this whole thing can get silly. People live their way, and to me ONE place not selling a wedding cake isn't denying someone food, fuel or any other item they couldn't easily procure at any number of other place.

Morality is an objective and personal thing in my eyes, until it reaches someone else. When you use the government to coerce someone against their will (and belief real or imagined in their religion) you're effecting them unduly to me and denying free association.

I'm pondering a gay bakery, seems to be big business.
sd72
11 years ago
Well, you'd be the right guy to run it.
ZRX1200
11 years ago
Entry in the back.
banderl
11 years ago

BEN SHAPIRO
31 Mar 2015
501

The state of Connecticut, under Governor Dannel Malloy, wants to boycott Indiana, too. Connecticut already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So do 17 other states around the country, none of which have been targeted for boycott.

ZRX1200 wrote:




Illinois is one of those states, but we also have laws making it illegal to discriminate against the gay homos.
Indiana has no such law, that's the crux of the biscuit.
ZRX1200
11 years ago
I'm the one that sang "just grab em' in the biscuits"
ZRX1200
11 years ago
And I'm sure they have no federal protections.
TMCTLT
11 years ago
All of this proving once again it was never about tolerance or acceptance , it is about becoming a Protected Class and lawsuits baby.....gimme da money!!!!
ZRX1200
11 years ago
Paul I disagree I don't see this having anything to do with $ I think it's more about maintaining momentum and not conceding ANY ground socially (how the Pink Mafia sees it).
victor809
11 years ago

I just like sparring now and then

I respect homosexuals being homosexuals and Christians being Christians, this whole thing can get silly. People live their way, and to me ONE place not selling a wedding cake isn't denying someone food, fuel or any other item they couldn't easily procure at any number of other place.

Morality is an objective and personal thing in my eyes, until it reaches someone else. When you use the government to coerce someone against their will (and belief real or imagined in their religion) you're effecting them unduly to me and denying free association.

I'm pondering a gay bakery, seems to be big business.

ZRX1200 wrote:



It's interesting, because on paper I don't disagree wtih you.
The problem is where the rubber meets the road...

People used religion as a defense for discriminating against blacks at one point. The bible was used to demonize them because they were darker, and therefore must be spawns of satan. By your logic, we shouldn't force someone to serve blacks who believes the christian bible tells them they are satanic and forbids it. And you know, if it was some dumb-azz bar in the middle of nowhere montana, it probably wouldn't impact anything. But if a dude who owns a bar in the middle of nowhere montana is able to discriminate against someone based on a poor interpretation of a religious tract, why wouldn't another guy who sells groceries? Or a gas station owner?

These laws are in place because there was a time in our nation's history where this activity was widespread enough that people were unable to live their lives in an equal manner.
ZRX1200
11 years ago
I'm not going to argue asinine straw men Vic, fact is the bakery thing was BS. Period. Going to another bakery IN FUGGING PORTLAND OREGON isn't an undue hardship neither is finding one that would be more than happy to help them. You know the bakery offered to help them find an alternative?

If you can't see the difference between participating in a SS wedding (by a Christian couple) and the treatment of blacks in the 50's or 60's than maybe you're as dumb as you think "TCBY" is.
Mr Roso
11 years ago
Folks that believe in an invisible deity (or plural in some cases) and they discriminate their fellow human beings based on those beliefs are just idiots. Plain and simple.
Now off to my smoke.
victor809
11 years ago

I'm not going to argue asinine straw men Vic, fact is the bakery thing was BS. Period. Going to another bakery IN FUGGING PORTLAND OREGON isn't an undue hardship neither is finding one that would be more than happy to help them. You know the bakery offered to help them find an alternative?

ZRX1200 wrote:



If you think that this being an inconvenience vs a hardship is the problem, then I think you're looking at it from a seriously skewed perspective. Do you want to define what constitutes a "minor inconvenience" vs a "hardship" and allow businesses to discriminate based off that? Do multiple "minor inconveniences" add up to one "hardship"? If so, what form do they use to document it, and is it only the last business who gets in trouble?

Saying something is a "minor inconvenience" from the position of greatest majority/privilege is possibly the most obnoxious thing a person could do. You're making the decision for them what is a minor inconvenience or not? On something that you will never personally have to experience? Even I know better than to be that arrogant.



If you can't see the difference between participating in a SS wedding (by a Christian couple) and the treatment of blacks in the 50's or 60's than maybe you're as dumb as you think "TCBY" is.


I'm not equating it to all treatment of blacks. I'm specifically relating it to the actions businesses chose to take to exclude black clientele. I'm specifically stating that religious reasons HAVE been used in the past to exclude certain races. If you're going to start letting the individual's interpretation of a religious document be justification for discrimination against ANY group, why would you make a distinction for race?

Let's make it even simpler. Judaism is a religion. As a religion it is VERY CLEARLY a choice. I could go and become jewish if I go to enough classes and ask a rabbi enough. If a Muslim shop-owner refuses to serve me because I'm jewish, is it ok?

ZRX1200
11 years ago
Why do you beat your girlfriend?
teedubbya
11 years ago
So if a bakery won't serve black folk but can point to another that will it's ok?

As for Indiana WGAF about a bunchs dit heads anyway?
Users browsing this topic