This Perfectly Sums Up What “Rights” Mean to Liberals

[This_person]

So you don't know what "Blue Laws" are (were) ? They were in effect so citizens could go and worship at what ever House of worship they chose ,it did not force anyone to open when they did not want to be open .So let me ask you a question ,was it all right to refuse service to blacks because of their skin color ?

Blue laws forced no one to be open on Sundays. Your question is the exact opposite of the topic. People are forced to service, not forced out of service.

Your new question, after still not answering my question, is also off topic. No one is suggesting that it is okay to not provide services to people based on how they look (even though strict dress codes are perfectly legal), the suggestion is that business owners not service actions with which they have religious objections. For example, a Muslim bakery shouldn't be forced to service a gay wedding, because Muslims are intolerant of that. But no one is saying that same Muslim bakery may turn away a customer just because she wears a Star of David necklace, even though Muslims are intolerant of the existence of Jewish people.

 

[SG_Player1974]

No, you've made this part of your life, no one forced you to read the threads, no one forced you to participate in the discussions, no one forced you to start this site and to continue to run it for all these years, no one brought this on you but yourself.

Also, miss high and mighty, I've see you post bigoted thing on this site so stop with the self-righteous indignation, its laughable.

While people may express their opinion we don't see anyone on this site acting out their opinion, if we did they would be all over the news and good ole Al would be down here protesting. Funny how tolerant you want others to be yet you are one of the most intolerant members here, if there is a opinion you don't like to hear, you put the member on ignore, if they continue to bother you, you ban them, how eff'ing tolerant of you.

Enjoy your perch, it's built on the hypocrisy you've posted over the years.

Awesome and refreshing!!

 

[vraiblonde]

Gee, looks like I struck a nerve.

It would be nice if you people could have a debate/argument without engaging in personal attacks and name-calling. So go ahead and add "dismissive" to my list of character flaws.

 

[SG_Player1974]

It would be nice if you people could have a debate/argument without engaging in personal attacks and name-calling. So go ahead and add "dismissive" to my list of character flaws.

Sorry.. that bandwagon is full. Try to find your own.

 

[Larry Gude]

Awesome and refreshing!!

When Vrai and I were married, it would come up fairly often how frustrating it was to let ugly sentiments be posted so freely. She and her partner would debate it. Virtually without exception, she chose more free speech rather than less as the proper course. For how many years now? So, yeah, she could just ban every one she disagrees with but that's not what she and David did and I think that is laudable in this nation, as to pour principles, and I think especially laudable in this day and age when people spend so much time seeking to treat words like sticks and stones and demand to not be 'offended' as they define it that day.

What is awesome and refreshing is that these forums are still going in a day and age most are terrified to speak freely.

 

[Ken King]

When Vrai and I were married, it would come up fairly often how frustrating it was to let ugly sentiments be posted so freely. She and her partner would debate it. Virtually without exception, she chose more free speech rather than less as the proper course. For how many years now? So, yeah, she could just ban every one she disagrees with but that's not what she and David did and I think that is laudable in this nation, as to pour principles, and I think especially laudable in this day and age when people spend so much time seeking to treat words like sticks and stones and demand to not be 'offended' as they define it that day.

What is awesome and refreshing is that these forums are still going in a day and age most are terrified to speak freely.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, yeah, she could just ban every one she disagrees with

And do you know that I have never done that, not one single time, but I get accused of it frequently. Which just goes to prove that people will believe what they want, even when it is demonstrably and obviously not true.

 

[GURPS]

..... the suggestion is that business owners not service actions with which they have religious objections. For example, a Muslim bakery shouldn't be forced to service a gay wedding, because Muslims are intolerant of that. But no one is saying that same Muslim bakery may turn away a customer just because she wears a Star of David necklace, even though Muslims are intolerant of the existence of Jewish people.

 

[Larry Gude]

And do you know that I have never done that, not one single time, but I get accused of it frequently. Which just goes to prove that people will believe what they want, even when it is demonstrably and obviously not true.

Well, everyones frame of reference is their own and not all that many have been around or paid enough attention to be aware of that let alone acknowledge it. Just seemed like a good time to point out that there is a reason you say this sort of stuff has been brought TO you and that you COULD, long ago, banished it, and, for the general good, (along with traffic) you guys are fairly unique in allowing rather free discourse, warts and all.

 

[Larry Gude]

Another authoritative voice.

 

[SG_Player1974]

And do you know that I have never done that, not one single time, but I get accused of it frequently. Which just goes to prove that people will believe what they want, even when it is demonstrably and obviously not true.

So... essentially you are patting yourself on the back for being so pro free speech on here yet.... we are at this point because you are upset about what other people have posted freely? Conflicted much? :shrug:

Well, everyones frame of reference is their own and not all that many have been around or paid enough attention to be aware of that let alone acknowledge it. Just seemed like a good time to point out that there is a reason you say this sort of stuff has been brought TO you and that you COULD, long ago, banished it, and, for the general good, (along with traffic) you guys are fairly unique in allowing rather free discourse, warts and all.

Fairly unique in the fact that you will rarely see a forum who's administrator/moderator gets so involved with the topics at hand.

 

[PJay]

Fairly unique in the fact that you will rarely see a forum who's administrator/moderator gets so involved with the topics at hand.

yup. And, personal private stuff between wife and husband, now ex husband for those not in the know. Now the Ex post about his tried and died one night stands or not. I'd say very unique.

 

[Larry Gude]

yup. And, personal private stuff between wife and husband, now ex husband for those not in the know. Now the Ex post about his tried and died one night stands or not. I'd say very unique.

Personal???? Hardly. You can read a hell of a lot more about all sorts of public figures than what we discuss.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fairly unique in the fact that you will rarely see a forum who's administrator/moderator gets so involved with the topics at hand.

Good thing, yes? :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

Another authoritative voice.

Yep, I am sure that their life would be more simple if David and DJ would routinely and regularly execute (meaning "banning" not actually killing them) members they simply disagreed with, but they don't "moderate" that way. Hell, they participate, which is great. My bet is that this has only happened, the banning, to about 1.67% of total members.

Where did I get 1.67% from? Forum data: Members - 25,651 Members list - 25,225 And probably half of those can be tracked to Baja28.

 

[Larry Gude]

And probably half of those can be tracked to Baja28.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think you are your posts as supporting discrimination. At least in terms of things like skin color, gender(s) and sexual preferences. As for being a bigot about music...

Constitutionally, in my view, this is a general welfare issue as well as pursuit of happiness. The argument that making a cake for a wedding violates ones own faith seems really specious to me and is very different from, say, being forced to officiate or even attend. People making arguments comparing this to having to bake for the klan and nazi's, man, how does one even get there, from gay to racial superiority and genocide?

What’s ‘specious’ to you is the norm for others. This goes along with our other discussion about ‘personal liberty’ and how others might try to dictate your actions/life. It’s a well-known, biblically-supported fact that Christians reject homosexuality. I think this would stand up in a court of law if put into practice. I think we’re on the same side at least with feeling it’s not smart business practices and not very Christian-like – at least in the context of ‘loving the sinner, hating the sin’. But this should not dictate how, or to what depth, someone practices their faith. If you can’t face the fact that there are Christians out there that feel it goes against their faith, in practice, to associate with gays, then we really do go down the road of weeding out which practices can be honored and which can’t, opening the door to all sorts of limits placed on ‘The FREE practice thereof…’

 

[Larry Gude]

What’s ‘specious’ to you is the norm for others. ’

I have to agree with that. Again, my issue is that this sort of thing has done nothing but harm the faith and, to me, that is not only NOT in keeping with what I got out of Sunday school but also very bad for the nation in the face of the rising tyranny of Islam.

 

[SG_Player1974]

Good thing, yes? :shrug:

No... not really. Not even close

 

[Larry Gude]

No... not really. Not even close

Then why do you post??? If this was some sort of amen chorus, that wouldn't be much fun to me. :shrug: