China, California, and Iowa infringe of religious liberties

[edwardmurphy]

ed wrote:
Details, details. Refusing to make me a cake for my buddy's gay wedding is still discrimination. I shudder to imagine the epic, screaming hissy-fit that will occur the day an American Christian faces the same treatment.

Would a Jewish baker who refuses to bake a cake with a swastika on it, be discrimination, that should not be allowed?

What about a Muslim cake maker who refuses to bake a cake with an insult towards Muhammad?

Still discrimination that shouldn't be allowed?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking about two different situations and making a false equivalency.

Absurd???

Yes, absurd.

As for homosexuals - you do not get it, do you? The links and I gave as well as the point was that sexual predators will exploit the laws to perp and target victims.

No, they don't.

Last time I was in a Target dressing room they were coed, meaning that there was a room with a row of stalls that were open to anyone wanting to try something on. One guy was apparently holding a cell phone above the wall, filming the woman next to him. That's a crime, so he was arrested. A different guy at a different store in a different state apparently tried to reach below the wall to film a girl changing. That's also illegal, so he was also arrested. And a third guy at another store in another state was also trying to film women changing, but there were no details mentioned about how he was doing it.

These events had nothing to do with the bathroom laws. Furthermore, the incidents took place in three different states, and one of them was over a year ago. That hardly constitutes a crime wave.

You frequently use 2-3 examples of something that bothers you to argue that it's happening everywhere all the time. Do you not understand that our country has a population of 300,000,000 people living in an area of 3.8 million miles?

It is not about bathrooms Ed it is about bashing Christianity just as your own paragraphed response above points out to castigate all Christians as bigots, homophobic, dweebs, ignorant stupid, brutish thugs...

What are you babbling about? Yes, I write in paragraphs - typical leftist - but everything else in that sentence you just made up.

If the laws were not changed under alleged Gay rights then these perps would not be going into women's dressing rooms, lockers, bathrooms in the first place ED...

Where did you get the idea that they were in women's dressing rooms? That wasn't mentioned in any of the articles. Did you dream it?

Have you ever noticed how few stores even have dedicated women's dressing rooms? They're mostly coed, and they often have dividers that you could easily look over or under if you were inclined to do so. My toddler does it all the time. Maybe instead of wasting your energy on ranting about events unrelated to gay rights you should focus on pressuring retail stores to build better changing stalls...

What part of common sense and common decency do you not understand Ed?

How you can claim to represent either...?

Who is really abiding according to this statement?

"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. " Isaiah 1:17,18 NKJV

Let's see...

Learn to do good? Well, according to you you do plenty of good, although I imagine that you're really preachy about it. At the same time, you constantly do bad by spewing hate and vitriol about a straw man that you call "the left." That's divisive, frequently dishonest, and generally bad for our society. You're also making stuff up in order to seem oppressed so that you can justify rebuking people you disagree with as oppressors rather than fellow citizens with different viewpoints. I don't recall the fatherless or widows coming up in this discussion, so I assume that they're incidental to your point - you wanted to use the part about oppression, so orphans and widows came along for the ride.

Anyway, I guess someone could be abiding by that statement, but it's not you.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
ed wrote:
Details, details. Refusing to make me a cake for my buddy's gay wedding is still discrimination. I shudder to imagine the epic, screaming hissy-fit that will occur the day an American Christian faces the same treatment.

Would a Jewish baker who refuses to bake a cake with a swastika on it, be discrimination, that should not be allowed?

What about a Muslim cake maker who refuses to bake a cake with an insult towards Muhammad?

Still discrimination that shouldn't be allowed?

Ed wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking about two different situations and making a false equivalency.

Nice non-answer. It's the same thing and you know it. But since it's not a Christian exercising his conscience, it doesn't apply. Hypocrite.

[edwardmurphy]

It wasn't a non-answer. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to talk out of my butt. I don't think that your scenarios are equivalent. Here is my understanding of things -

If a gay couple walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake the owner is expected to sell them a wedding cake. If that same couple asks for a cake that says "Jesus Sucks" the owner is completely within his rights to say that, while he's perfectly willing to sell them a cake, he's not going to write an offensive message on it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[RickD]

It wasn't a non-answer. I'm not a lawyer and I try not to talk out of my butt. I don't think that your scenarios are equivalent. Here is my understanding of things -

If a gay couple walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake the owner is expected to sell them a wedding cake. If that same couple asks for a cake that says "Jesus Sucks" the owner is completely within his rights to say that, while he's perfectly willing to sell them a cake, he's not going to write an offensive message on it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Yes, you're wrong.

In all three cases, the business person is refusing to sell something based on it going against his conscience.

The fact that you conflate that with illegal discrimination because of sexual orientation, is disturbing.

[B. W.]

No Ed,

The is a progressive left and they do have goals. Studied these while I was in College while earning my Social Work Degree from the perspective of the left to promote community change, social justice, etc and et al. Writings from radical's like Alinsky and his friends were required reading. MY Professors were all leftist in fact the whole department was one big groupthink tank... of worn out 1960 protest radicals seeking their heyday again...

Several points to notes from lectures from upper level classes made these points to fundamentally transform America... back in the 1990's

1) Nationalize major sectors of economy... ie support from corporations to monopolize enforced by Govt. Green example energy for example and use of global warming... Very interesting to have seen this develop since 1990's...

2) Garner Support for the redistribution of Wealth. Use media as champions of causes and by establishing a Govt run single payer health care system - Back in the 1990's Clinton's pushed for this.

3) Identify-target (or create) and organize an dependent-victimized class to use against the existing social order viva by community organizers - main import of Social Workers from CSU were to become agents for social change...and how to do this.

4) Discredit all opposition (This was an interesting topic back in the early 1990's brought to light during the events last 7.5 years: For example the recent DHS memorandum that came out a few years ago sent to law enforcement to identify future threats from fringe Christian groups, Pastors/Christians who disagree, pro-life groups, second amendment groups, veterans returning from recent wars... and add in the IRS scandals of 2012... as well as what is taught in schools...)

5) Establish Hate crime legislation in order to promote transformation - glorify the plight of less than 1/3rd of the US Population as the victims for new civil rights in order to target clergy, Christianity if they do not comply to change. I.E. Homosexuals were to be used as the new civil rights movement despite the old Mental Disorders DSM classifications homosexuality was a mental disorder. (The DSM 1 changed soon not to class Homosexual as a full mental disorder by around (1987) and transgender people later (DSM 3/4). Also we were trained on how to frame arguments for these new civil rights to justify the censorship and humiliation of grass roots groups and clergy who oppose by use of ridicule and show them that they do not live up to their own standards as well as use of the mental health by experts.

6) Develop need for a constabulary police like force for law and order over the US population by use of civil rights violation by police real or contrived (based on ends justify the means to attain social justice). The reason was for control of the dependent masses and for forcing support from those that oppose. Ride in a like a savior but eliminate problems one created quickly....

7) Refocus teacher certification programs to introduce pre-school, elementary, High School curriculum that promote homosexuality, dependence, dumb down social skills, promote anti-Christian agenda as well as promote anti-america history... Weaken math skills... (please note Ed, I had to attend these certifications classes as part of my SW practicum requirements. (Create a new generation - youth - who will grow into and accept Marxist didactic... was the goal)

There is more but the facts do not matter to you Ed, or any progressive leftist as you yourself really are.

Here are a few articles

Newly Discovered Letters Between Hillary Clinton & Saul Alinsky (Marxist & Community Organizer

45 Declared Goals of Marxist for America

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Ed, facts do not matter to you. Again we show grace to you... allow you to post...and you treat us with contempt and disregard all evidence and facts. There is a recent surge, for example, after the bathroom mandate was pushed, in sexual predators exploiting this law to peep, film, expose and may soon rape in women restrooms, locker rooms, etc... This evidence is silenced by the media - why?

You would think that the 1/3rd of the US population would side with human decency and respect, but no, a few do not as they have an agenda driven narrative to push. Collateral damage means nothing to that small percent of activist out of that 1/3rd of US population.

What of the victims and those exploited by predators caused by this mandate - do they have rights of not being offended too, Ed? Who really speaks for the children and women Ed? Who is tolerant and respectful of them?


Next, what the heck is the agenda of the FFRF anyways?

Again who really is the Hate person here? Who hates Christians who stand up for truth? Who seeks to remove Christianity from the public square and marginalized us into impotence? What narrative do they use to justify this?

How is that love ED? How is that tolerance Ed?

You are incapable of living to your own standards Ed - So welcome to the human race and the need to be forgiven and released of it by Jesus Christ of this shame...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Ed, facts do not matter to you. Again we show grace to you... allow you to post...and you treat us with contempt and disregard all evidence and facts.

You (singular) show me grace? You (singular)? Seriously?

And no, I don't treat you (plural) with contempt and disregard. You (singular) are a different matter, but then you reap what you sow. But even saying that, I try to reserve my contempt for your ridiculous, insulting, hateful statements and claims. I'm sure that you're a perfectly decent human being, but most of the stuff you say is vile.

There is a recent surge, for example, after the bathroom mandate was pushed, in sexual predators exploiting this law to peep, film, expose and may soon rape in women restrooms, locker rooms, etc... This evidence is silenced by the media - why?

Silenced by the media, huh? As usual, your total inability to substantiate your claims proves that they're true. How convenient.

Again who really is the Hate person here? Who hates Christians who stand up for truth? Who seeks to remove Christianity from the public square and marginalized us into impotence? What narrative do they use to justify this?

You could give my 3-year-old daughter lessons on melodrama, and she could teach you a lot about honesty.

[edwardmurphy]

Yes, you're wrong.

I was initially impressed by your confidence, but then I remembered that you don't know any better than I do and you're just talking out of your butt.

In all three cases, the business person is refusing to sell something based on it going against his conscience.

The fact that you conflate that with illegal discrimination because of sexual orientation, is disturbing.

I don't think that's correct.

In the former case the baker is refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because they intend to use it at their wedding and he doesn't approve of gay marriage. That's discrimination. In the latter the owner is declining to do something for a gay couple that he wouldn't do for anyone else, either. That's not. Same with your Jewish baker example. "I don't do business with white supremacists" would be discrimination, but "I don't make swastika cakes" would not.

But as I said, I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong. I'm also not going to spend half a night researching anti-discrimination laws, so unless you're up for it we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Hortator]

You could give my 3-year-old daughter lessons on melodrama, and she could teach you a lot about honesty.

i pity your kids

[edwardmurphy]

Wow. That's the most insulting thing that anyone has ever said to me. I doubt you have kids so you probably wouldn't grasp why, but wow...

Anyway, you shouldn't. They're great kids and I'm a pretty good father. Not the best, but I work hard at it.

[RickD]

Yes, you're wrong.

I was initially impressed by your confidence, but then I remembered that you don't know any better than I do and you're just talking out of your butt.

In all three cases, the business person is refusing to sell something based on it going against his conscience.

The fact that you conflate that with illegal discrimination because of sexual orientation, is disturbing.

I don't think that's correct.

In the former case the baker is refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because they intend to use it at their wedding and he doesn't approve of gay marriage. That's discrimination. In the latter the owner is declining to do something for a gay couple that he wouldn't do for anyone else, either. That's not. Same with your Jewish baker example. "I don't do business with white supremacists" would be discrimination, but "I don't make swastika cakes" would not.

But as I said, I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong. I'm also not going to spend half a night researching anti-discrimination laws, so unless you're up for it we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

We can't agree to disagree when you just don't understand the argument. You're disagreeing with a false argument.

Here, in simple terms...

The Jewish baker would make cakes for white supremacists, unless they wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a swastika cake)

A Muslim baker would bake a cake for non-Muslims, unless a non-Muslim wants him to bake a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a cake that insults his prophet)

A Christian baker would make cakes for homosexuals, unless they wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a gay wedding cake)

Now you can see the real argument. If you want to disagree with that, then go right ahead. But you'd be hypocritical if you only disagreed with one, and not the others.

And just to add another...

A Christian baker would bake cakes for Christians, unless a Christian wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a "God hates [homosexuals]" cake)

So as you should be able to see, the baker is not discriminating based on sexual orientation. He's discriminating based on the message on the cake, that goes against his conscience. I really hope you can see the difference.

[edwardmurphy]

The Jewish baker would make cakes for white supremacists, unless they wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a swastika cake)

A Muslim baker would bake a cake for non-Muslims, unless a non-Muslim wants him to bake a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a cake that insults his prophet)

A Christian baker would bake cakes for Christians, unless a Christian wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a "God hates [homosexuals]" cake)

So far so good.

A Christian baker would make cakes for homosexuals, unless they wanted a specific cake that goes against his conscience.(a gay wedding cake)

They didn't want a specific cake, just a plain old wedding cake of the kind that bakers everywhere sell all the time. The baker's objection wasn't with the cake they ordered, it was with where they planned to bring it. That's none of his business.

[JButler]

Keep in mind that Hitler and the Nazis came to power and were allowed to implement policies/laws to establish their doctrines.....and it was all done 100% legally!!!

If you do an in-depth study of Hitler's methods your hair should stand on end when the realization hits this could easily happen in the USA. Once the Constitution is either watered down, twisted or flat out disregarded then everything is possible and the floodgates are flung wide open.

[B. W.]

Keep in mind that Hitler and the Nazis came to power and were allowed to implement policies/laws to establish their doctrines.....and it was all done 100% legally!!!

If you do an in-depth study of Hitler's methods your hair should stand on end when the realization hits this could easily happen in the USA. Once the Constitution is either watered down, twisted or flat out disregarded then everything is possible and the floodgates are flung wide open.

Problem, people do not know history or about such matters in any great degree.

My whole premise has been that the leftist makes laws and by slow legal steps...

Thankfully the Supreme court blocks the gender bathroom lower court ruling... for now...

An interesting aside, my wife and went to local Target store as we haven't been for awhile. I tried on some clothes and was shocked that the men's dressing room was removed and only a uni-sex dressing room allowed. It was strange and you could see from looks of folks, both men and women going in the dressing room were uneasy.

How easy would a false accusation could be made under such circumstance not to mention sexual predictors taking pictures....under such stupidity.

Target is history - will not return to that store...

...besides the clothes were extremely cheaply made and the whole ambiance has changed too
-
-
-
-
-
-