America's new 'thing' is on display.....

[Stagger Lee]

Persecution is persecution. I am using the definition. I am not saying only one side is persecuting, I am saying the media allows a voice from one side but not the other, which is by definition persecution

To be more clear, The persecution being discussed is not by or for the gays or Christians, but the persecution by the billboard, the mouthpiece, the institution of media and statism, ther referees if you will.....in what it allows to happen, or persecutes.

Your argument above still skirts the topic because you are making it about the two sides at odds. I am not pointing out that flaw but merely the persecution by the referees who are in control.

It is the nature of the State, Corporations or Mainstream outlets which are the springboard for persecution. THAT is what is being discussed here. They are the one's allowing for or disallowing for a voice to be heard.

It is THEIR persecution we are talking about here. Not the gays persecutions of the Christians, or the Christians persecution of the gays.

This is what we talked about in the beginning where we said it was ok for one side (gays) to attack and spout their vision, but not allowed for the other side (Christians). The referees won't allow it, that is censorship and persecution upon the Christians.

So true, the government, education and media only allow a pro-gay, feminist, socially liberal but also big money interests, politically correct, anti-white/Christian/conservative/traditional message to be heard. It's propaganda. Telling people what they can and can't say and control where it can be said, and forcing Christians or anyone for that matter to fully accept homosexuality is extreme persecution.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I am agnostic myself, so I don't support any religion. However my biggest problem with Christians is the whole anti-gay marriage thing. I do think gays should have the same rights as non-gays when it comes to the benefit of marriage.

WHY? No, seriously, why? Marriage is intrinsically linked to reproduction. The whole original purpose of marriage was to create favourable conditions for couples to conceive and raise kids. As gays cannot have kids, marriage does not apply to them by definition. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of gays don't want to get married in the first place. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for about a decade now. Only about 0.2% of Canadian gays are married. Most "gay marriage activist" aren't even gay themselves.

 

[( . )( . )]

WHY? No, seriously, why? Marriage is intrinsically linked to reproduction. The whole original purpose of marriage was to create favourable conditions for couples to conceive and raise kids. As gays cannot have kids, marriage does not apply to them by definition. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of gays don't want to get married in the first place. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for about a decade now. Only about 0.2% of Canadian gays are married. Most "gay marriage activist" aren't even gay themselves.

The Bokmeister nailed it. The entire sodomite subculture is the epitome of anti-life. Gays couldn't give a flying rats sack about the bigger picture of marriage. It was simply a vessel the gay mafia used to stick it to the "breeders". I'm guessing the tax breaks married couples receive didn't hurt them either. They are just another branch of the parasitical gimmiedats after all.

 

[Stagger Lee]

WHY? No, seriously, why? Marriage is intrinsically linked to reproduction. The whole original purpose of marriage was to create favourable conditions for couples to conceive and raise kids. As gays cannot have kids, marriage does not apply to them by definition. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of gays don't want to get married in the first place. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for about a decade now. Only about 0.2% of Canadian gays are married. Most "gay marriage activist" aren't even gay themselves.

Yeah the gay marriage agenda isn't even really about marriage. Marriage is just a pretext for the continuation of tearing down traditional family and Christian values. Marriage isn't really a right per se. It was a religious and family tradition to begin with. Gays have no right to redefine traditions, religious or otherwise. Gays could've had civil unions that afforded them the same benefits of married couples but that just wasn't good enough for them (not that I agree they should have civil unions with the same benefits heterosexual marriage has intend to benefit the children).

Heterosexuals hardly even want to get married any more. I bet you why the media and government is so in support of gay marriage is somehow tied to money-the marriage and divorce and family law complex. And I don't know, this culture has become so perverse maybe people in some part hate heterosexuality and families.

Only a fool would believe it's really about gay's "rights".

 

[Special EDy]

Yeah it's not a good thing for the government to circumvent the 1st amendment and enforce politically correct speech through the private sector.

Besides, there's a lot of things the government can't do per the Bill of Rights and that the private sector can't or shouldn't be able to as well, such as, invade your privacy with search and seizures, cruel and inhuman punishment. I'm sure there's better example though.

Where is the government pulling the strings? Once again we have a ~90% christian government.
Companies aren't enforcing politically correct speech, they are utilizing their first amendment right to free speech. Companies have the same rights as you. There is a church every 20 feet it seems in this country, they dont seem to be enforcing "politically correct speech", they say whatever the heck they want. Corporations are entitled to holding and expressing their views just like a church is. And considering churches are businesses, the majority of companies taking a stance in this country are probably in fact outspoken AGAINST homosexuality.

I love how liberals are suddenly constitutionalists when it comes to free speech. Yes, the First Amendment is to restrict government not private companies. But, the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the public good of free speech, especially political speech. Intolerance of political speech is hardly a good thing. A balkanized society where he econimically coerce those that disagree with us into submission via boycotts over every little thing is not a healthy, tolerant society.

Quite the contradiction. The right to boycott is extrapolated from the first amendment; freedom to assemble, to associate, and of speech. Boycotting is a very patriotic thing to do if we consider the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and the boycotts arising from the Stamp Act, Townshend Act and Tea Act which lead to the American Revolution. Intolerance of political speech is DEFINITELY a first amendment right.

So true, the government, education and media only allow a pro-gay, feminist, socially liberal but also big money interests, politically correct, anti-white/Christian/conservative/traditional message to be heard. It's propaganda. Telling people what they can and can't say and control where it can be said, and forcing Christians or anyone for that matter to fully accept homosexuality is extreme persecution.

We cant allow one particular group to dominate, we must allow equal protection. Since Christian beliefs tend to restrict the rights or tolerance of others, they are disregarded. We don't allow Islamic beliefs either, because that would involve severe restrictions on women and non Muslims, along with many other atrocities. Christmas is a national holiday, name one other religion which is granted such a holiday? Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah? We only resist you when your beliefs trample on other groups.
The latter part of what you said, "telling people what they can and can't say forcing Christians....", no one is restricting you, no one is forcing you to do anything. Nobody is allowed to restrict anybody, so by some perverse twist of logic you assume that by not allowing you to limit other peoples rights you are yourself being limited. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You aren't being forced to accept homosexuals, but you wont be allowed to trample on their rights either. You can say, think or do whatever you want, but as I keep saying if you work for someone else you are subject to their discretion to tolerate your speech. They dont have to keep giving you a check when you open your mouth in public.

WHY? No, seriously, why? Marriage is intrinsically linked to reproduction. The whole original purpose of marriage was to create favourable conditions for couples to conceive and raise kids. As gays cannot have kids, marriage does not apply to them by definition. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of gays don't want to get married in the first place. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for about a decade now. Only about 0.2% of Canadian gays are married. Most "gay marriage activist" aren't even gay themselves.

They can adopt children too, they can have a surrogate mother/father too. They deserve all the tax breaks that straight couples do too. Who are you to judge their union? Are you god, are you some vastly intelligent entity? All they have to say is "we deserve the same rights" and no one can really debunk that. Until you have lived a lifetime in their shoes how can you relate and understand their circumstances.

 

[Stagger Lee]

No one should be forced to accept gay marriage, not tax payers, ministers, churches or anyone that supplies the wedding industry. The federal government is forcing everyone to accept gay marriage. Many states and voters have banned gay marriage and the federal government is forcing them to allow gay marriage.

Every social policy over the recent years comes from the federal government. The media, corporations, lobbyist, elected officials and agencies all work together in DC and push these agendas against the public's will or just brainwashes them into accepting it willingly.

This is suppose to be a republic with free speech, not a dictatorship of special interest groups pushing agendas.

The right to boycott is extrapolated from the first amendment; freedom to assemble, to associate, and of speech. Boycotting is a very patriotic thing to do if we consider the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and the boycotts arising from the Stamp Act, Townshend Act and Tea Act which lead to the American Revolution. Intolerance of political speech is DEFINITELY a first amendment right.

Oh you're for freedom of association, are you? Then how come formerly all male clubs were forced to accept females? How come a business enterprise is forced to hire women and others they might not want to associate with?

You're pretty transparent. If something is in agreement with your beliefs (liberal and atheist) then it should encouraged and be enforced. But if it something doesn't agree with your beliefs (anything traditional) then it must be opposed and suppressed as "hate speech" and "intolerance".

 

[speed dawg]

I bet you why the media and government is so in support of gay marriage is somehow tied to money-the marriage and divorce and family law complex........Only a fool would believe it's really about gay's "rights".

You don't need to "bet". This is EXACTLY the reason. Lawyers and all the other leaches are pushing it, and nimrod idealists like Gaylan are the foot soldiers of the 'movement'.

 

[Special EDy]

Bokanovsky,

I shouldn't say so much that I support gay marriage as I support that all individuals and couple are treated fairly.

Right now, the gay marriage push is to have the same rights as hetero-marrieds. For purposes of healthcare, social security, taxes, etc,....

I don't believe that a hetero couple should have these rights while others do not have them at all. So my support isn't explicitly for gay marriage, it is more support for non-special treatment of married couples in these regards.



Ed,

As far as the whole "right to free speech" and Constitution portion of the argument regarding Christians and Gays.

Neither side has a right to not be offended but both sides do have a right to not be persecuted. Not just by Governments but also by Corporations. Persecution takes many forms. Some is outright banning which is illegal.....some is censorship and terrorist tactics, much like the A&E situation.


Zekko,

Technically he was fired, not allowed to be on the show again. He was only reinstated when there was a huge uproar and the whole family was going to walk. However none of that changes the attempt and execution of said persecution. Only finally when the wagons circled did they back off. It won't be the last persecution of Christians though. They are still forced to fund abortions and such via Planned Parenthood, and to supply contraceptives which run counter to their religion.

Of course, these are prime reasons why the Federal Government was so restricted in it's power and was granted nothing except what was specifically delineated in the Constitution. Like all Governments, that didn't stop it from growing and seizing power where it was never granted such. This is the lifecycle of civilizations and beyond the scope of this thread though.

Corporations have free speech too. What you are proposing is limiting the free speech of corporations. So if I go into work and call my boss a fat f*** he wont be allowed to fire me, because I have freedom of speech right?

Amish people are forced to pay for modern technology they don't agree with. Computers, electricity. I don't see them whining like Christians. We have to draw the line somewhere and that happens to be not paying mind to peoples superstitious beliefs when it comes to writing laws.

 

[Special EDy]

I am not proposing anything, merely drawing the parallels which exist for persecution.

Corporations have free speech within limits. Just as the they free reign on providing their services and products, within certain limitations.

Ex: Corporations cannot deny selling their product or service based on someone's race. That is persecution. It is their product, but they must deliver it within a range bound by laws.

So why should this protection be limited to race?

Nobody can fire their employee for being a certain religion, so why should they have the right to fire their employee for what they say about their religion on their own time? And even if they can fire their employee for this, it doesn't make it any less of a persecution.

Because it's said in public. A lot of jobs check your FB before hiring you looking for this exact sort of stuff. I pretty much limit my political opinions to places like this, I don't put it on FB or YouTube or anywhere like that. There does seem to be a point when its unfair, such as some chump like you or me posting something harmless on the internet, but consider the case of Phil Robertson. He goes to GQ magazine and makes all these remarks. Suddenly people may think this represents A&E's stance, A&E is now a pulpit for Phil Robertson to spread his belief from(since this channel made him famous). A&E has a right to present whatever self image to the public they wish. They have freedom of association, meaning they can align themselves with whatever political stance they want.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Corporations have free speech too. What you are proposing is limiting the free speech of corporations. So if I go into work and call my boss a fat f*** he wont be allowed to fire me, because I have freedom of speech right?

You are conflating issues of what should and shouldn't be limited free speech. Firing some one is not automatically free speech. Are you saying your boss should be free to call you a fat f**k? If it were, then one's boss could call the person a slvt and fire them.What we're talking about is people on their own time and even on their own property or public property, being denied economic and educational opportunities for making protected political or social statements.

Amish people are forced to pay for modern technology they don't agree with. Computers, electricity. I don't see them whining like Christians. We have to draw the line somewhere and that happens to be not paying mind to peoples superstitious beliefs when it comes to writing laws.

No they're absolutely not forced to pay for anything they do not want or feel they do not need.

Who are you to decide what is superstitious beliefs and what isn't?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/amish-faq/

Amish people selectively use technology -- choosing what will serve their community and rejecting what may harm it. Although each church makes its own decisions about technology all of them reject television, computers in their homes, and the ownership of cars. All of them permit the use of 12-volt electricity from batteries, and some permit home-generated 110-volt current for special equipment, but the vast majority reject tapping into the public grid. Solar power is popular in many communities. Most Amish use horses to pull field equipment, but a few communities permit tractors. A few groups allow cell phones, but most do not. Most communities modify technology to fit their cultural values, such as placing steel wheels on tractors, installing battery-powered turn signals on buggies, and running refrigerators with propane gas. Although car ownership is taboo, many churches allow members to hire vehicles and a non-Amish driver for long distance and business travel.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Because it's said in public. A lot of jobs check your FB before hiring you looking for this exact sort of stuff. I pretty much limit my political opinions to places like this, I don't put it on FB or YouTube or anywhere like that. There does seem to be a point when its unfair, such as some chump like you or me posting something harmless on the internet, but consider the case of Phil Robertson. He goes to GQ magazine and makes all these remarks. Suddenly people may think this represents A&E's stance, A&E is now a pulpit for Phil Robertson to spread his belief from(since this channel made him famous). A&E has a right to present whatever self image to the public they wish. They have freedom of association, meaning they can align themselves with whatever political stance they want.

That public speech is protected is the whole point of free speech. Being able to say whatever you want only alone in your closet doesn't constitute free speech. Would you be OK with someone being denied economic or education opportunities for making statements that are atheist, feminist, or for multiculturalism? This almost never happens anymore but No you are absolutely not. You've made that clear, that wedding caters etc must serve gays, business should provide abortion medication etc etc.

You are a one way street, like most progressives and liberals.

One of the examples cited involved AT&T. The company had asked all of its employees to sign a "certificate of understanding" that would commit them to "fully recognize, respect, and value the differences among all of us...[including]..."sexual orientation." Albert Buonanno, a devout Baptist, told his supervisor that he had no intention of discriminating against or harassing homosexuals. However, he felt that he could not honorably sign the statement because he believed that it contradicted biblical teaching. Like most conservative Protestants, he probably believes that God hates homosexual behavior and that the Bible forbids it. Buonanno was fired the next day. This is a clear case of an individual being required to choose between violating his religious beliefs, and losing his job. Presumably, if the employer had asked the employees to "fully recognize and respect the rights of everyone, including homosexuals, to work in an environment free of discrimination and harassment," then Buonanno would have readily signed. But the document required Buonanno to "respect and value" homosexuality.

I never did like AT&T much.

This is admittedly a gray area but HP had no real reason to put up posters promoting gay and lesbian workers, any more than promoting any other group. It still demonstrates a one-way street. Gosh how did the US make such great advancements back before promoting gays and diversity?

Hewlett-Packard conducted a diversity program which had the slogan: "Diversity is Our Strength." It was supported by posters in the workplace which showed gays and lesbians at work. Rich Peterson, a long-term HP employee, made some posters of his own. They featured Bible verses which, in most English translations of the Bible, appear to condemn all homosexual behavior. Peterson had allegedly admitted that this quotation was "intended to be hurtful," and that its purpose was to distress gay employees so that they would be motivated to change their behavior. After he refused to take his posters down, he was fired.

Peterson sued, and lost at trial. The trial court's decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their decision said that: "Hewlett-Packard's efforts to eradicate discrimination against homosexuals in its workplace were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally." They ruled that his posting of the scriptural verses harmed the company's efforts to "attract and retain a qualified, diverse work force, which the company reasonably views as vital to its commercial success." Allowing Peterson to retain his posters would have harmed HP's effort to "attract and retain a qualified, diverse work force, which the company reasonably views as vital to its commercial success. "

 

[Special EDy]

You are conflating issues of what should and shouldn't be limited free speech. Firing some one is not automatically free speech. Are you saying your boss should be free to call you a fat f**k? If it were, then one's boss could call the person a slvt and fire them.What we're talking about is people on their own time and even on their own property or public property, being denied economic and educational opportunities for making protected political or social statements.

Corporations have free speech too. What you are proposing is limiting the free speech of corporations. So if I go into work and call my boss a fat f*** he wont be allowed to fire me, because I have freedom of speech right?

Learn how to read, Im not saying these things at all, Im sarcastically pointing out the fallacies in Danger's argument. If we consider the first amendment in YOUR definition and Danger's definition, one could walk into work and call their boss a fat f*** and not get fired. Because a business shouldn't be allowed to fire you for what you say, according to you. I started off the statement phrased as a question, and I ended it with a question mark.

You need to read the constitution "Congress shall make no law...", nowhere does it say "businesses must tolerate you". If you walk into a restaurant and start saying things they find offensive you can be refused service and asked to leave. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for anything, just as they reserve the right to terminate you for any or no reason at all. Free speech is only constitutionally protected from government restriction. Discrimination laws are simply laws written by the federal and state governments, NOT constitutional.

No they're absolutely not forced to pay for anything they do not want or feel they do not need.

Who are you to decide what is superstitious beliefs and what isn't?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...cle/amish-faq/

9. Do the Amish pay taxes?
Yes. They pay income, property, sales, estate, and corporate taxes, and in fact many of them pay school taxes twice -- for both public and private Amish schools. Congress exempted the Amish from Social Security in 1965 because they believe that church members should care for each others' physical and material needs and not depend on what they call "government handouts." Thus, most do not pay into Social Security or receive payments from it. In some states, Amish people are also exempted from insurance for on-the-job injuries because they cover their own medical expenses.

OK, you aren't forced to pay for abortions or anything you don't agree with as a Christian either.

But Wait! You totally missed the point Danger and I were arguing, that public TAX dollars are used to pay for these things. If this is the case, the Amish are absolutely forced to pay for things they don't believe in. So why should everyone else have to pay for things they don't believe in except for Christians?

And as far as superstitions, we will have to consider all religious beliefs to be superstition. No one can substantiate any of their religious claims, like I said before our society believes in Aristotle's methodology NOT Plato's. We cant accept your claims and not accept the most radical religious nut's claim, so we don't use anybodies religious beliefs if possible. Something being against the bible or god's will is absolutely no basis for law.

That public speech is protected is the whole point of free speech. Being able to say whatever you want only alone in your closet doesn't constitute free speech. Would you be OK with someone being denied economic or education opportunities for making statements that are atheist, feminist, or for multiculturalism? This almost never happens anymore but No you are absolutely not. You've made that clear, that wedding caters etc must serve gays, business should provide abortion medication etc etc.

You are a one way street, like most progressives and liberals.

Free speech is ONLY protected against government restriction, it is NOT protected against restriction by private entities. I could very well be asked to leave a chruch for my own stated beliefs. In fact I have heard about it happening many times. They cannot discriminate against you personally, but they can discriminate against your speech.



I would agree with you that forcing a business to cater for a gay wedding(specifically the actual service, not cakes or anything) crosses some boundaries I wish it didn't, but this goes back to the civil rights act of 1964. Its a really slippery slope when you open the door here, "one little time I pull out a thread and where does it end"? Things could go backwards really fast. I would possibly support a bill that allowed this very tiny hole, but what happens when a gay couple is completely unable to find someone in their area to fulfill a service at their wedding? Its a very interesting conundrum.
A loophole for the business would be to have very well defined details for its product. "All cakes come with a bride and groom on top, no exceptions" If this was enforced against every group, even same sex couple who didn't want a bride and groom atop their cake, then technically it wouldn't be discrimination. You cant legally force McDonalds to sell you a BigMac a different way because of your race or religion, they only make it one way(with some clearly defined variables).

Churches are places of public accommodation. Consider the fact that they pay no taxes and its outrageous to think they believe they can discriminate. Gay people support churches through their tax dollars.

 

[Good Gao]

Do you know why football players do this?

By publicly going for support in controversial topics, it gets people on their side, so their mediocre performance can be overlooked.

Chris Kluwe tried this. Tried to make a big fuss about being fired for his remarks, when in actually he was one of the most mediocre players in his position and the numbers and facts don't lie.

Same thing with this Michael Sam. From what I see, he was a late round draft pick, who did badly on the NFL Combine. He wouldn't even be in the news if it wasn't for this whole gay schtick he keeps milking.

This is not a gay this or that issue. Sh!tty players always try to use controversial edges to keep themselves relevant, and hopefully in a job. Tim Tebow was meh and he played the Christian card a lot. Mediocre players that try to get an edge. Nothing more.

I wouldn't call Tebow or Sam mediocre players by any stretch of the imagination. Tebow won a Heisman and led Florida to a national title while Michael Sam was a solid defender during his season in the SEC. Sometimes combine stats don't mean as much as on field performance where both Tebow and Sam proved themselves in college.

 

[Special EDy]

Ed,

My only argument is that there is persecution of Christians and I and others have thoroughly demonstrated how this is occurring.

The "what" is clearly defined at this point. Christians are silenced and censored from speaking their beliefs, even outside of the workplace.....The censorship is applied by the vehicle of occupational terrorism. If they speak they lose their job.

What other group in the US faces censorship persecution by the same occupational terrorism?

There doesn't seem to be any censorship here. How many people here have expressed their views and how many have lost their jobs? How many millions of Christians have stated their opinions and been fired? Less than .1%? In fact if we were to use this thread as an example, we would find that the overwhelming majority of negativity has been against the pro-homosexual stance.
Duck Dynasty doesn't prove anything. You have yet to provide any other evidence, and I was in fact the one that provided the Phil Robertson example for a different point. Show me the widespread persecution of Christians in the streets, prove your conspiracy theory. The burden of proof is on you my friend to prove you outrageous beliefs, not on the skeptic.

 

[speed dawg]

Duck Dynasty doesn't prove anything.

Are you dense? Phil Robertson got fired because of his Christian beliefs. He didn't hurt gays, he simply stated his beliefs. No matter how you spin it, that's what happened.

And it also proves that corporations are going to pander to whoever the loudest groups are. When Christians collectively fired back at A&E, they hired him back. Christians need to wake up and voice their opinions more often. That's what it proves more than anything.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Learn how to read, Im not saying these things at all, Im sarcastically pointing out the fallacies in Danger's argument. If we consider the first amendment in YOUR definition and Danger's definition, one could walk into work and call their boss a fat f*** and not get fired. Because a business shouldn't be allowed to fire you for what you say, according to you. I started off the statement phrased as a question, and I ended it with a question mark.

Again you are conflating free speech with proper professional behavior. No one said anything of the kind. I said, people especially on their own time and on public property/venue or their own property, should be free to say what they believe without their education, employment and economic opportunities being threatened.

You need to read the constitution "Congress shall make no law...", nowhere does it say "businesses must tolerate you". If you walk into a restaurant and start saying things they find offensive you can be refused service and asked to leave. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for anything, just as they reserve the right to terminate you for any or no reason at all. Free speech is only constitutionally protected from government restriction. Discrimination laws are simply laws written by the federal and state governments, NOT constitutional.

Again that's not even the point. We're not talking about being disruptive on private property. We are talking about denying people education and employment opportunities based on political correct speech. The government determined what was politically correct and what was not. This is the government controlling free speech civil through education and employment opportunities. Politically correct wasn't just some spontaneous private social phenomenon. It was politics.

OK, you aren't forced to pay for abortions or anything you don't agree with as a Christian either.

Really?

But Wait! You totally missed the point Danger and I were arguing, that public TAX dollars are used to pay for these things. If this is the case, the Amish are absolutely forced to pay for things they don't believe in. So why should everyone else have to pay for things they don't believe in except for Christians?

Who said just Christians? You don't have to be Christian to not believe in certain things and to not want to support them.

And as far as superstitions, we will have to consider all religious beliefs to be superstition. No one can substantiate any of their religious claims, like I said before our society believes in Aristotle's methodology NOT Plato's. We cant accept your claims and not accept the most radical religious nut's claim, so we don't use anybodies religious beliefs if possible. Something being against the bible or god's will is absolutely no basis for law.

You don't have to be Christian or religious to be against homosexuality or what have you. I guess according to you the government should decide what's right, ethical or moral regardless of public opinion.

Free speech is ONLY protected against government restriction, it is NOT protected against restriction by private entities. I could very well be asked to leave a chruch for my own stated beliefs. In fact I have heard about it happening many times. They cannot discriminate against you personally, but they can discriminate against your speech.

You just keep repeating the same red herring and calling it a free speech issue. Actually churches want atheist and gays so they can try to convince them the error of their ways. But no group is going to want someone that's just purposely being disruptive and disorderly.

I would agree with you that forcing a business to cater for a gay wedding(specifically the actual service, not cakes or anything) crosses some boundaries I wish it didn't, but this goes back to the civil rights act of 1964. Its a really slippery slope when you open the door here, "one little time I pull out a thread and where does it end"? Things could go backwards really fast. I would possibly support a bill that allowed this very tiny hole, but what happens when a gay couple is completely unable to find someone in their area to fulfill a service at their wedding? Its a very interesting conundrum.
A loophole for the business would be to have very well defined details for its product. "All cakes come with a bride and groom on top, no exceptions" If this was enforced against every group, even same sex couple who didn't want a bride and groom atop their cake, then technically it wouldn't be discrimination. You cant legally force McDonalds to sell you a BigMac a different way because of your race or religion, they only make it one way(with some clearly defined variables).

Churches are places of public accommodation. Consider the fact that they pay no taxes and its outrageous to think they believe they can discriminate. Gay people support churches through their tax dollars.

What tax dollars support churches? Churches are supported by private donations. Why would paying tax or not determine whether you can discriminate? Earlier in your posts you said churches could discriminate based on "free speech" and correctly that they are private property. Now you're saying they are a public accommodation for gays lol? Your one way street is showing again.

Why was the Boy Scouts of America forced to have gay scout leaders? This was an offense to most people involved in BSA.

 

[Special EDy]

Who else has spouted Christian beliefs in an interview outside of those hosts who are paid specifically to do so?

Watch daily on any mainstream news show and you will see people coming out in support of gays. Nothing happens to any of them. Not one.

The one-time you see a Christian come out with it on his own time, he loses his job over it. Are you really suggesting there is no pattern here?

Statistically speaking, if there was no persecution, the odds of Phil being fired for his viewpoint would be astronomical if he was treated equally as the gays who have spokespeople in the media everywhere.

But, given that it is the only Christian I know of who spoke out.....and was fired for it, it speaks volumes that he was persecuted whereas not a single gay was fired for coming out public with his own opinions.


I see 100% persecution here, unless you can show me someone who was spouting it and didn't get fired from his job.

Tracy Morgan, Mel Gibson, Chris Brown, Alec Baldwin, Pat Robertson, Donald Trump, Cee Lo Green, Eminem, just about any conservative politicial, an enourmous number of news hosts and guests.


The Dixie Chicks got boycotted by conservatives after they spoke out against President Bush.
Family Research Group demanding a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because of ties to Planned Parenthood.
American Family Association boycotted Home Depot into submission for funding progay groups.
AFA boycott of RadioShack for not using the word Christmas in its ads.
Boycott of Disney for "promoting homosexual agenda"
Starbucks
Lowes
Pepsi
Heinz
Coke
Target
Kraft
BestBuy
Burger King
McDonald's
Walgreens

Just to name a few

A&E's statement-
"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty'"
"His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Again that's not even the point. We're not talking about being disruptive on private property. We are talking about denying people education and employment opportunities based on political correct speech. The government determined what was politically correct and what was not. This is the government controlling free speech civil through education and employment opportunities. Politically correct wasn't just some spontaneous private social phenomenon. It was politics.

You are confusing government and culture. The government is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Society, culture, finds this homophobic speech unacceptable. If you were to be radical oppressing people in any other category, like a Nazi or KKK, you would find the same backlash and public outcry. The government will accept your beliefs, they wont do anything to you, but the American people will not tolerate you and through Freedom of Association they will crush you. Unpopular opinions tend to piss a lot of people off. Politically correct is determined by the masses, NOT the government.

What tax dollars support churches? Churches are supported by private donations. Why would paying tax or not determine whether you can discriminate? Earlier in your posts you said churches could discriminate based on "free speech" and correctly that they are private property. Now you're saying they are a public accommodation for gays lol? Your one way street is showing again.

Why was the Boy Scouts of America forced to have gay scout leaders? This was an offense to most people involved in BSA.

Roads, bridges, military and defense, commerce. Tax dollars make this country run, without tax dollars this would just be another burnt out third world country with no infrastructure. This is why the rich are expected to pay higher taxes, because its through the infrastructure paid for by all of us that they make their millions. But churches dont pay taxes. They are indirectly dependent on tax dollars.

The constitution only limits government action. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in the employment of individuals. Federal laws also prohibit the refusal of services to a person based on sex, race, religion, color or national origin.
Federal laws do not prohibit firing people because the said something. As I keep saying, you open your mouth you have no rights as far as employment.
So yes, a church has the right to FIRE you for your speech. They do not have the right to refuse you service unless you become a disruption. They cannot refuse service based on color, race, religion..., they are legally defined as a "public accommodation".
Boy Scouts of America cannot refuse service to or hiring of individuals based on sex, race, religion, color or national origin. If it pisses you off, too bad.

 

[Stagger Lee]

You don't understand US culture and the role of the politics, government and media. It's all politics. Or maybe you do understand that but when any conservative/traditionalists hold power or influence, you label it "superstitious, bigoted Christians".

Hardly anyone in the culture supported or cared for feminism, Immigration Act, Affirmative Action, politically correct, gay marriage etc. It was presented as one-sided brainwashing propaganda into the culture and forced on the public.

And if you want to argue non-profit organizations shouldn't be tax exempt, that's fine but there are many non-religious and liberal non-profits out there. No need to single out churches just because you hate Christians so much.

Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. No one should know your sexual orientation, and no one cares.

 

[Special EDy]

You don't understand US culture and the role of the politics, government and media. It's all politics. Or maybe you do understand that but when any conservative/traditionalists hold power or influence, you label it "superstitious, bigoted Christians".

Hardly anyone in the culture supported or cared for feminism, Immigration Act, Affirmative Action, politically correct, gay marriage etc. It was presented as one-sided brainwashing propaganda into the culture and forced on the public.

And if you want to argue non-profit organizations shouldn't be tax exempt, that's fine but there are many non-religious and liberal non-profits out there. No need to single out churches just because you hate Christians so much.

Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. No one should know your sexual orientation, and no one cares.

I label any religion as superstitious, and as Ive stated previously in the thread

I dont know where you determined I have a dislike for whites, perhaps just wishful thinking on your part. I also have a dislike for "bigoted" christians, which would be a percentage of christians not the group as a whole; the either ignorant, misinformed or naturally prejudice who use their religion as a justification for hate. You can include muslims and jews into this category too, but since the are not the preponderant majority it isnt worthwhile to talk about them in USA politics.

The role of the government is to support the masses. But, its also to protect the minorities and unpopular opinions. In some of the examples you gave the government went too far, but in every case the government was forced to do something to protect these groups.

The reason why I talked about churches in this debate is because we are talking about gay marriage, and the fact that churches are forced to marry gays. I didn't bring the subject of churches up. Nor did I say anywhere that they should pay taxes, I'm making the logical conclusion that they live off of the system. Do you pay taxes? I do, churches don't. Gay people do, churches still don't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. No one should know your sexual orientation, and no one cares.

Religion should not be a protected class. No one should know your religious orientation, and no one cares.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not confusing Government and culture at all. I have explicitly stated that it is the Corporations and Government, the referees so to speak, which are systematically persecuting Christians.

YOU are the one who keeps trying to tie it back to only the Government. That is on YOU.

Remember back in the beginning we talked of whether persecution was happening.

Not whether it was legal.
Not whether it was only the Government.
Not whether it is protected in the Constitution.

Simply that persecution of Christians was happening, and you said it wasn't. Every time you bring up "That's not in the Constitution" or "That isn't the Government", you move the goalposts on the persecution discussion.

You and I are not the only posters on the page, if you would kindly read who I quoted and who I was clearly responding too-

Again that's not even the point. We're not talking about being disruptive on private property. We are talking about denying people education and employment opportunities based on political correct speech. The government determined what was politically correct and what was not. This is the government controlling free speech civil through education and employment opportunities. Politically correct wasn't just some spontaneous private social phenomenon. It was politics.

You are confusing government and culture. The government is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Society, culture, finds this homophobic speech unacceptable. If you were to be radical oppressing people in any other category, like a Nazi or KKK, you would find the same backlash and public outcry. The government will accept your beliefs, they wont do anything to you, but the American people will not tolerate you and through Freedom of Association they will crush you. Unpopular opinions tend to piss a lot of people off. Politically correct is determined by the masses, NOT the government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see 100% persecution here, unless you can show me someone who was spouting it and didn't get fired from his job.

Your post only serves to provide more proof of persecution of Christians. None of your examples are even mainstream or resulted in the firing of someone. Your first example has nothing to do with Christianity, you are really stretching and it shows.

^^^Does that mean I win, I gave you exactly what you asked for. Or did you just forget your own argument?


I also provided you with an ample number of examples of conservative or christian groups boycotting major brands. Most of the celebrities I listed actually said a homophobic slur and are not simply outspoken.


I sense that you two are starting to circle the wagons.

 

[Special EDy]

This is a forum, that means I can respond even not posts not aimed at me.

If you understood how forums work, perhaps you would know that.

Then don't whine and create false arguments when I say something to someone else. "Oh I didn't say that". No ****, no one said you did.

Not it just means that you found someone who wasn't fired, who wasn't a Christian. Great for you, but they were still persecuted for saying their point of view, so you only found another example of oppression.

Mel Gibson- Christian, heck he produced The Passion of Christ
Chris Brown - Born Again Christian
Alec Baldwin - Catholic
Pat Robertson - Baptist
Donald Trump - Presbytarian
Cee Lo Green - Christian / Nondenominational?
Eminem - Christian

Which ones exactly got fired? Which ones arent Christians again? Oh right, cant find Tracy Morgan's religion so nobody on the list counts. Way to ignore facts.

That is fantastic, but has nothing to do with the support by the mainstream for persecution of Christians or of my challenge to you to find it's equivalent in promoting Christianity

Wow really, every single one of those boycotts are "it's equivalent in promoting Christianity". I won this challenge, your just unwilling to accept defeat.
What about Chick-Fil-A, you ignore that every time I bring it up.

Most of the celebrities you listed are NOT Christian and in any case they were still heavily vilified for speaking their viewpoint, which is why I state you are only proving my case.

Every single one of them is Christian except for Tracy Morgan, whose religion we cant confirm.
The CEO of Chick-Fil-A wasnt fired for being anti-gay. I dont see Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Bachman, Palin or anybody else getting fired?

Your sense isn't worth a $hit. It speaks volumes that you keep moving the goal-posts in your attempt to deny that Christians are consistently attacked and vilified in the media today.

At least I know how to make coherent arguments. You haven't made a bit of sense for several posts now. You just keep claiming the grass is blue and denying facts with incomprehensible logic. Every time I answer a question you deny it and rephrase the question. "Oh, I was actually looking for the opposite of what I said earlier":crazy:

Again I request, for I think is the fourth time, show me a pro-homosexual in the media who was suspended or lost his job for his statements in the same manner as Duck Dynasty.

Well, to begin with, Phil Robertson is currently employed by A&E so you have yet to provide a solid example of someone getting fired. Its debateable whether he counts.

There are only second rate people getting fired for being pro-gay. Viking's punter, some F1 marketing manager, columnists at newspapers, people in church. I cant find anyone getting fired recently as famous as Phil Robertson.

There are 29 states where you can be fired for being gay. Find me one state where you can get fired for being a christian. This is a huge atrocity. The difference between being a Christian and being gay is that religion is a belief, a choice. Being gay is not a belief, its just something that you are. A perfect analogy would be getting fired over being conservative versus being black.

One side is preaching intolerance, and gets angry when others don't tolerate their intolerance; the other side is screaming for equality, they are asking for tolerance. Asking for intolerance and asking for tolerance are not the same thing. Apples and oranges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CEO of Mozilla was even worse. Hardly outspoken, he donated a few bucks to prop 8 or whatever, gone. Scary. Also why libs love campaign finance "transparency" so much, for persecution purposes.

His own shareholders asked for his resignation, not outside pressure. He worked for a pro-equality company.
BUT, conservatives responded by asking for a boycott. I would say if anybody gets dirt on their hands here its both sides of the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another great example.

As I have stated before, I am agnostic so am not anti-gay. But it doesn't take a genius to see the assault on Christians or anyone who dare have an opposing viewpoint to gays.

I have a feeling I will be waiting an awful long time before Special Ed comes up with an example of someone losing their job for promoting pro-gay ideology.

As the leftists continually prove, tolerance only seems to go in one direction.

I could start listing all the thousands or millions of cases where someone got fired for being gay. Just because Phil-Robertson lost his job and then was immediately reinstated doesn't prove your conspiracy theory. As always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. All I have to do is sit back and dismantle your evidence.

Correct on the tolerance statement, tolerance only goes one way and intolerance only goes one way. Gays are asking for tolerance, for equality. Christians are asking for intolerance of gays, for inequality. Thanks for agreeing with me.