Socal's AD skipping Indy meeting
- Thread starter BGI User 348
- Start date
it ain't gonna get better. The quest for 'equality' will ultimately sacrifice individual liberties.
However, For "believers", we know things don't get 'better' before the tribulation; so assuming that is the direction then things will continue to be more tlike the Jerusalem spoken of in Isa 1.
JMO.
However, For "believers", we know things don't get 'better' before the tribulation; so assuming that is the direction then things will continue to be more tlike the Jerusalem spoken of in Isa 1.
JMO.
I wonder if he'll come to the game on Oct 17th.
Will he demand that the game be played somewhere else?
IF ND refuses will southern cal forfeit?
Will he try to cancel the game?
Will he construct a flowery speech that ND represents all that is good and show up?
Oh what a tangled web....
Will he demand that the game be played somewhere else?
IF ND refuses will southern cal forfeit?
Will he try to cancel the game?
Will he construct a flowery speech that ND represents all that is good and show up?
Oh what a tangled web....
Ewing, I see your point. Personally, I'd give preference to freedom of religion there. The reason being, the rights deleinated in the BOR are basic human rights that our founding fathers had the wisdom to protect, in that great document. The opposing "right" here (the right to have a particular baker bake a cake for you against their wishes, etc) just doesn't meet that standard IMO.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
And blacks who were denied service at hotels were free to go to the next hotel and give their business to someone more willing to be tolerant. Yet, society has deemed this solution to be unacceptable.
Apples and oranges. The laws in the south specifically segregated blacks. This law does not specifically segregate gays. It protects people's religion.
Also, the law states the government must show a compelling burden. Wouldn't someone's civil rights be a compelling burden. I really feel this is knee jerk. But I also think the states that pass this law should also pass protective laws for the LGBT Community. They are human beings. Regardless of whether we think it's right, wrong, disgusting or deviant. they deserve to be treated with dignity.
This post was edited on 4/1 12:20 PM by Syd4ND
Apples and oranges. The laws in the south specifically segregated blacks. This law does not specifically segregate gays. It protects people's religion.
Also, the law states the government must show a compelling burden. Wouldn't someone's civil rights be a compelling burden. I really feel this is knee jerk. But I also think the states that pass this law should also pass protective laws for the LGBT Community. They are human beings. Regardless of whether we think it's right, wrong, disgusting or deviant. they deserve to be treated with dignity.
This post was edited on 4/1 12:20 PM by Syd4ND
The only "gay rights" that anybody is seeking is to be treated just like everyone else. Gays and lesbians want the right to marry just like anyone else can. Gays and lesbians want the obligations and rights that every other married couple has, i.e., joint tax returns, owning property "by the entireties," health care benefits, etc. They are not seeking to be treated differently but, rather, they are seeking to NOT being treated differently.
I recognize and appreciate that certain religions find homosexuality to be a sin and I fully support those religions' refusal to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage. Those religious beliefs, however, should have nothing to do with what the government does and does not do. If the government is going to sanction marriages between two consenting adults, the gender of those two consenting adults should not matter. This is the separation of church and state.
I don't want to be discriminated against because I am an Irish-American or because I am white or because I am bald or because I graduated from ND. I wanted to be treated as an American citizen and be able to succeed or fail on my own intelligence, personality and work ethic. I want to be able to associate with whomever I choose and to marry whomever I choose. That is the same thing that the "Gay Lobby" is seeking and I find nothing objectionable to that.
I recognize why so many people try and differentiate between discrimination against homosexuals and discrimination against Blacks but, in the end, the discrimination is more alike than different. The question is whether a business should be able to discriminate against anyone based upon a physical characteristic, regardless of whether that characteristic is race, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc.. Of course if you really think that people choose to be gay than this argument will have no effect upon your opinion.
I'm old enough to remember the hate directed at Minnesota Twins' star Rod Carew because he had the gall to marry a white woman. Imagine, two consenting adults wanted to commit to one another and devote their lives to one another! Many people considered this example of miscegenation to be an abomination and an affront to the Lord. Carew received countless death threats as a result of his decision.
This is not the forum to try and convince anyone to change their minds. I can only hope that people at least consider that they might be wrong. I know (and am constantly reminded by my wife) that I could be completely wrong about everything. It is possible that there is a God that is judging my every thought and action (in which case I am screwed). It is possible that homosexuality is an affront to God (although why he would create beings that are an affront to him is beyond my understanding). It is possible that the Irish football team will be much better next year than I think (although I think they will be pretty good).
It would be nice to think, however, that people might have an open-enough mind to consider the possibility that they might be wrong rather than thumping their chest and insisting that they always are right. And yes, I know I am guilty of both thumping my chest and thinking that I am always right.
I recognize and appreciate that certain religions find homosexuality to be a sin and I fully support those religions' refusal to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage. Those religious beliefs, however, should have nothing to do with what the government does and does not do. If the government is going to sanction marriages between two consenting adults, the gender of those two consenting adults should not matter. This is the separation of church and state.
I don't want to be discriminated against because I am an Irish-American or because I am white or because I am bald or because I graduated from ND. I wanted to be treated as an American citizen and be able to succeed or fail on my own intelligence, personality and work ethic. I want to be able to associate with whomever I choose and to marry whomever I choose. That is the same thing that the "Gay Lobby" is seeking and I find nothing objectionable to that.
I recognize why so many people try and differentiate between discrimination against homosexuals and discrimination against Blacks but, in the end, the discrimination is more alike than different. The question is whether a business should be able to discriminate against anyone based upon a physical characteristic, regardless of whether that characteristic is race, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc.. Of course if you really think that people choose to be gay than this argument will have no effect upon your opinion.
I'm old enough to remember the hate directed at Minnesota Twins' star Rod Carew because he had the gall to marry a white woman. Imagine, two consenting adults wanted to commit to one another and devote their lives to one another! Many people considered this example of miscegenation to be an abomination and an affront to the Lord. Carew received countless death threats as a result of his decision.
This is not the forum to try and convince anyone to change their minds. I can only hope that people at least consider that they might be wrong. I know (and am constantly reminded by my wife) that I could be completely wrong about everything. It is possible that there is a God that is judging my every thought and action (in which case I am screwed). It is possible that homosexuality is an affront to God (although why he would create beings that are an affront to him is beyond my understanding). It is possible that the Irish football team will be much better next year than I think (although I think they will be pretty good).
It would be nice to think, however, that people might have an open-enough mind to consider the possibility that they might be wrong rather than thumping their chest and insisting that they always are right. And yes, I know I am guilty of both thumping my chest and thinking that I am always right.
As I see it the USA is no longer a Judeo. Christian society but a secularist one. No side will change the thoughts and beliefs of the other, so accept it and don't fight it.
For those of us that believe in the hereafter I guess we'll find out who is right in all these issues.
For those of us that believe in the hereafter I guess we'll find out who is right in all these issues.
It had nothing to do with segregation. It had to do with whether or not you wanted your business frequented by people of a different color.
I agree with you that protecting someone's civil rights would be a compelling government interest. I think the concern about Indiana is that there is no LGBT protection in state law in the same way there is protection for race, ethnicity, gender, etc. As a result, there's some concern that a court would decide that if the state believed LGBT protection to be a compelling interest, it would have passed a law indicating as such (and considering that the three people that Pence chose to be surrounded by and who pushed for the law clearly DON'T think LGBT protection is a compelling interest, there is some smoke there). Obviously, that's speculative - but so is most talk about a law.
^ yup;
when asked by non believers about my faith and questioned by them, I say at worst, if wrong, I get a better way of life; and for you, if wrong, it is the ultimate biggest "whoops"!!!!
If you do not believe: party hardly, this is it!
when asked by non believers about my faith and questioned by them, I say at worst, if wrong, I get a better way of life; and for you, if wrong, it is the ultimate biggest "whoops"!!!!
If you do not believe: party hardly, this is it!
mbd - for what it's worth, I struggle with the law myself. I think RFRAs have generally been a good thing for society in how they've been implemented. The Indiana one, though, has been pushed by a different intent than the federal law and many state laws.
For your last points, people often bring up the analogy of race. There were those who, unfortunately, used Christianity in a way to justify not serving interracial couples, or not serving people of different color period. That same right - the right to be served at a particular restaurant, the right to stay at a hotel, or the right to have a cake baked for you - was at issue. In that instance, society by and large has decided that anti-discrimination is more important than someone's individual beliefs, even if the latter are in the first amendment.
I'm not sure where to draw the line - and there's probably no good universal solution.
For your last points, people often bring up the analogy of race. There were those who, unfortunately, used Christianity in a way to justify not serving interracial couples, or not serving people of different color period. That same right - the right to be served at a particular restaurant, the right to stay at a hotel, or the right to have a cake baked for you - was at issue. In that instance, society by and large has decided that anti-discrimination is more important than someone's individual beliefs, even if the latter are in the first amendment.
I'm not sure where to draw the line - and there's probably no good universal solution.
Pers, I don't understand the whole "...if wrong, I get the better way of life." I actually have a great life without religion. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean that I don't act morally. I give back to my Community in multiple ways and have raised two wonderful kids who are honest and moral.
Some people consider it an attribute that I choose to act morally rather than having to act morally out of some fear of judgment and retribution.
Some people consider it an attribute that I choose to act morally rather than having to act morally out of some fear of judgment and retribution.
I don't want to speak for perse, but I find that my life is better with faith in it. If it turns out that I'm wrong on the religion issue, then so be it - but I still believe there's some value to my life because of my faith.
For what it's worth, though I would agree that you can be an atheist and still be moral, I can only speak for myself - I've found that my faith has generally shaped my views on morality and has helped me be a better person. Not saying that you need faith to do that, but I've needed it.
NDEwing, I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've had various friends tell me that they also get something out of their faith. Sometimes it is a certain peacefulness, other times it is a sense of community, and other times it is an ability to explain the unexplainable. I've always respected, and sometimes even envied, people with faith. My concern is that all too often people either try and project their faith, or otherwise force their beliefs, on to others.
Right is right and wrong is wrong but there is a lot of space in between the two and it is in that vast space that we must, as individuals, live and be allowed to live.
Right is right and wrong is wrong but there is a lot of space in between the two and it is in that vast space that we must, as individuals, live and be allowed to live.
I think I agree with NDE's statement without need to add; well put.
Duck you also stated a respectable position; if it works for you than it just come down to diff strokes for diff folks kinda thing.
Duck you also stated a respectable position; if it works for you than it just come down to diff strokes for diff folks kinda thing.
Actually Irish Duck the gays want to be treated special. THEY WANT SPECIAL TREATMENT. They want all others RIGHTS and OPINIONS and everything else to bow down to them.
as is typical of people like you, you never see your own hypocrisy. You would trumpet Larry Flynts right to distribute his garbage but you want to trample on others rights in the name of your blatent hypocrisy.
Many religions treat homosexuality as a sin. That is a fact. The first Amendment protects the right of people to practice their religion, so in the end if this ever gets to the supreme court it is doubtful that the gays will be very happy with the result. Freedom of Religion trumps hurt feelings. The Colorado incident was obscene. The gays DELIBERATELY went to that particular bakery to start the whole process. I have seen pictures of the storefront of that business- it was very clearly a christian owned business.
One tradition that should be respected is the right of a business owner to refuse to do business with someone.
I think that is a fundamental right of freedom that trumps hurt feelings any time.
Was that bakery the only one in town? NO. AND when it comes right down to it just how important is a bakery?
It was not like a doctor refusing to treat a patient. Or anything like that. Yet a judge not only ordered them to serve someone that blatently went against their religious beliefs, but then ordered they undergo SENSITIVITY TRAINING.
1984 anyone?
as is typical of people like you, you never see your own hypocrisy. You would trumpet Larry Flynts right to distribute his garbage but you want to trample on others rights in the name of your blatent hypocrisy.
Many religions treat homosexuality as a sin. That is a fact. The first Amendment protects the right of people to practice their religion, so in the end if this ever gets to the supreme court it is doubtful that the gays will be very happy with the result. Freedom of Religion trumps hurt feelings. The Colorado incident was obscene. The gays DELIBERATELY went to that particular bakery to start the whole process. I have seen pictures of the storefront of that business- it was very clearly a christian owned business.
One tradition that should be respected is the right of a business owner to refuse to do business with someone.
I think that is a fundamental right of freedom that trumps hurt feelings any time.
Was that bakery the only one in town? NO. AND when it comes right down to it just how important is a bakery?
It was not like a doctor refusing to treat a patient. Or anything like that. Yet a judge not only ordered them to serve someone that blatently went against their religious beliefs, but then ordered they undergo SENSITIVITY TRAINING.
1984 anyone?
Irish Duck posted on 4/1/2015
NDEwing, I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've had various friends tell me that they also get something out of their faith. Sometimes it is a certain peacefulness, other times it is a sense of community, and other times it is an ability to explain the unexplainable. I've always respected, and sometimes even envied, people with faith. My concern is that all too often people either try and project their faith, or otherwise force their beliefs, on to others.
Right is right and wrong is wrong but there is a lot of space in between the two and it is in that vast space that we must, as individuals, live and be allowed to live.
---------
I agree; the most moral person I know is an atheist. In my experiences, atheists tend to be more consistent in their views and less hypocritical in the application of their views.
NDEwing, I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've had various friends tell me that they also get something out of their faith. Sometimes it is a certain peacefulness, other times it is a sense of community, and other times it is an ability to explain the unexplainable. I've always respected, and sometimes even envied, people with faith. My concern is that all too often people either try and project their faith, or otherwise force their beliefs, on to others.
Right is right and wrong is wrong but there is a lot of space in between the two and it is in that vast space that we must, as individuals, live and be allowed to live.
---------
I agree; the most moral person I know is an atheist. In my experiences, atheists tend to be more consistent in their views and less hypocritical in the application of their views.
"One tradition that should be respected is the right of a business owner to refuse to do business with someone."
If you open a business in a secular world, you have no business refusing to do business with anyone. Start a commune if you only want to serve people with beliefs that you like.
This is an example when Christians act like the Muslims that desire sharia law.
If you open a business in a secular world, you have no business refusing to do business with anyone. Start a commune if you only want to serve people with beliefs that you like.
This is an example when Christians act like the Muslims that desire sharia law.
onlyonenow, you've really gone off the deep end. As I understand it, these special rights that the gays want is to be able to marry the person they love. SHAME ON THEM! They want the right to do business with people just like heterosexuals do. SHAME ON THEM!
If they are successful, next the government will require me to start allowing Blacks and Latinos to shop in my store! I'll have to live in the same neighborhood as Muslims!
onlyonenow, you might want to consider joining one of the neo-nazi groups in Idaho or Montana and you can live with your all-white, right-thinking friends.
This post was edited on 4/1 5:36 PM by Irish Duck
If they are successful, next the government will require me to start allowing Blacks and Latinos to shop in my store! I'll have to live in the same neighborhood as Muslims!
onlyonenow, you might want to consider joining one of the neo-nazi groups in Idaho or Montana and you can live with your all-white, right-thinking friends.
This post was edited on 4/1 5:36 PM by Irish Duck
Irish Duck and the tired and worn out talking points of the crusades, racism, inquisition, and Catholic priests. That's their default comeback when they have nothing. Nothing. I am trying to figure out why gays, the media, and the left hates Christianity so much. I actually know why but the truth is hard to face for these folks. Funny thing, if and when a Muslim bakery refuses service there will not be word one from these anti religious bullies. You people want tolerance but find it impossible to give it. What's worse are the cowards in the Republican Party like Mike Pence who hide in a fetal position at the smallest pushback. This whole anti religion thing really got ramped up over the last six years. You can cherry pick the small points of each state and their Religious Freedom laws but the fact that mom and pop stores are being fined, closed, threatened, slandered, and jailed has to make the gay community and you supporters proud.
What does your "petty superstition" remark mean?
Also, how are business owners going to identify if a person is gay?
I think the linked interview process may be effective.
FF to 1:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR9HuRUUTbs
Also, how are business owners going to identify if a person is gay?
I think the linked interview process may be effective.
FF to 1:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR9HuRUUTbs
Sorry, Irish Jack, most people don't hate Christianity. It is a fine religion that espouses universally accepted and admired beliefs of honesty, integrity, kindness and love. What people hate, or at least those that do hate, are those Christians who reject the core principals of their own religion and engage in dishonesty, cruelty, and hate.
I am not a religious man but I don't hate religion. I don't hate Islam but I do hate the extremists who believe that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is an infidel and needs to die. I don't hate Christianity but I hate extremists who believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and who doesn't follow their interpretation of the Bible is a bad person and should be shunned.
You attempt to belittle the points about the past sins of Christianity as if to say they are of no import. I'd be curious to know who has killed more people - Extremist Muslims over the past 50 years or Christians during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Of course, that was hundreds of years ago. I assume you have read, however, about the physical and sexual abuse by priests and nuns both in America and Ireland, as well as various other nations around the World. Are you proud to have those abusers as fellow Christians?
Putting all of that aside, the fact is that you don't just hate the sin, you hate the sinners. This is not just something that you disagree with but, rather, something that you find abhorrent.
Be honest, Irish Jack, if you could, would you round up all of the homosexuals and stick them in a camp where the innocent children of America wouldn't be exposed to them? Would you be happy then? Do I really need to draw the comparisons to the Third Reich's Final Solution or even FDR's Japanese internment camps.
You can huff and puff and say that I am hiding behind rhetoric and using old examples of mis-deeds but Irish Jack, I ask you to be honest. Would you set up those camps?
I am not a religious man but I don't hate religion. I don't hate Islam but I do hate the extremists who believe that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is an infidel and needs to die. I don't hate Christianity but I hate extremists who believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and who doesn't follow their interpretation of the Bible is a bad person and should be shunned.
You attempt to belittle the points about the past sins of Christianity as if to say they are of no import. I'd be curious to know who has killed more people - Extremist Muslims over the past 50 years or Christians during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Of course, that was hundreds of years ago. I assume you have read, however, about the physical and sexual abuse by priests and nuns both in America and Ireland, as well as various other nations around the World. Are you proud to have those abusers as fellow Christians?
Putting all of that aside, the fact is that you don't just hate the sin, you hate the sinners. This is not just something that you disagree with but, rather, something that you find abhorrent.
Be honest, Irish Jack, if you could, would you round up all of the homosexuals and stick them in a camp where the innocent children of America wouldn't be exposed to them? Would you be happy then? Do I really need to draw the comparisons to the Third Reich's Final Solution or even FDR's Japanese internment camps.
You can huff and puff and say that I am hiding behind rhetoric and using old examples of mis-deeds but Irish Jack, I ask you to be honest. Would you set up those camps?
Don't be idiotic. There is not a true Christian alive that would set up camps or lift a finger to hurt any human being. I can't say that about the anti Christian left though. True Christians don't have to run disclaimers or defend ourselves. We know who we are. And right now we are under attack from fellow Americans and our politicians.
Gov't has no business in religious matters. Strike the term
marriage from all laws and replace it with domestic partnership or some other non-religious term. Gays, hetero's can all get the same domestic partnership license and related privileges from the gov't. Those who wish to also be married, which would no longer carry any legal ramifications whatever, may do so through a religion of their choosing. I doubt Christians would have much of a problem making pizza or cakes for a domestic partnership ceremony. If they do, then they shouldn't be in business. Problem solved (as usual, by getting gov't out of our lives).
marriage from all laws and replace it with domestic partnership or some other non-religious term. Gays, hetero's can all get the same domestic partnership license and related privileges from the gov't. Those who wish to also be married, which would no longer carry any legal ramifications whatever, may do so through a religion of their choosing. I doubt Christians would have much of a problem making pizza or cakes for a domestic partnership ceremony. If they do, then they shouldn't be in business. Problem solved (as usual, by getting gov't out of our lives).
You might be interested to know that the whole reason we need Religious Freedom and Restoration Acts is because one of our conservative Supreme Court Justices - Scalia - changed the way the Supreme Court protects religious freedom by rejecting the "compelling interest" test that had been used in previous religious freedom cases. The three most liberal justices on the court - Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall, all wanted maintain the "compelling interest" test for religious freedom cases. All the RFRA's that have been passed have been drafted to increase the protection of religious freedom by effectively restoring the compelling interest test established by Justice Brennan in Sherbert v. Verner (1963).
In short, Religious Freedom and Restoration Acts generally are trying to restore the religious protections as first articulated by liberals, but then later rejected by conservatives over liberal objections.
Politically, there's plenty of hatred, intolerance, and stupidity to go around.
Face it the law is wrong. Hopefully it goes away before it is used against ND in recruiting. The Irish womens bb team should wear practice shirts that say " No to any kind of descrimination in the state of Indiana!" It might show people that not everyone in Indiana is a rightwing crackpot.
And here's our problem. Half witted comments like the one above. Have you ever been in Indiana? Do you even know anyone from our state? Do you feel the same about the other 19 states? What about the law passed by Bill Clinton?
1st off we ALL know haden is an IDIOT. Will he not travel to EVERY state that protects freedoms??? In business I do not understand why anyone would not be open for business to all but maybe criminals. I do though understand that deeply religious persons asked to perform a more "personal" service could find certain things morally repugnant. And Catholic hospitals should NOT be forced to perform abortions etc. I believe most people would find certain objections to be REASONABLE and would understand. There are many bakers & wedding planners out there---good grief go to ones that are gay. IMO most gays are probably this way--but the activist leaders are not.
I personally do not believe in most "discrimination"--even against gays---definitely not against Catholics. BUT I do not think it should be called "marriage" either......and believe it is a sin too. We are all sinners in some way.
May God continue to bless ND, Indiana and the USA!!!
I personally do not believe in most "discrimination"--even against gays---definitely not against Catholics. BUT I do not think it should be called "marriage" either......and believe it is a sin too. We are all sinners in some way.
May God continue to bless ND, Indiana and the USA!!!
heyDuck:
I have a question; not being contentious, just a question for you.
IF, if you were convinced Jesus was who he said he was, would that alter your belief at all?
(no, not your belief that discrimination is 'just wrong'; but you belief as far as faith goes; btw: it is also wrong to try to impose your beliefs on someone - regardless of which side of the argument you are on; I think that is the premise the baker and pizza owners are operating on)
thanks in advance, for your reply
I have a question; not being contentious, just a question for you.
IF, if you were convinced Jesus was who he said he was, would that alter your belief at all?
(no, not your belief that discrimination is 'just wrong'; but you belief as far as faith goes; btw: it is also wrong to try to impose your beliefs on someone - regardless of which side of the argument you are on; I think that is the premise the baker and pizza owners are operating on)
thanks in advance, for your reply
Similar threads
