|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not playing your stupid game. If it isn't obvious then go on being stupid. As I've already said nobody has to justify how they base their actions on the Bible and an unbeliever will never get it anyway. There are five Christian business owners I am aware of who all came independently to the same understanding of what the Bible requires of them, refused to serve a gay wedding, and that agreement among them is enough to show Christian consensus. The rest is none of your business if you can't figure it out yourself..
Obviously you missed what I said about race. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Faith doesn't respond but instead gets sidetracked.
quote: Irrelevant. The US Government is in no way based upon the Bible. Instead, it is based upon the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. That means that when the law requires you to follow the anti-discrimination statutes on the basis of sexual orientation, you do not have the right to deny service to gay people, even if they are using your product for their "gay" purposes.
quote: Oh, I have figured it out. I'm simply requesting you be honest and say it out loud.
quote: Then indulge me and say it again. Still waiting on your answer, Faith: How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament? Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What is your problem? Christians don't care what the US government says if it contradicts God's word. Why can't you follow a simple argument? Your opinion means NOTHING. And neither does the Supreme Court's opinion. They are in the wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Christians don't care what the US government says if it contradicts God's word. Why can't you follow a simple argument? Your opinion means NOTHING. And neither does the Supreme Court's opinion. They are in the wrong. You have to stop saying really stupid stuff Faith. You do not speak for all Christians. Many Christians understand that God does not determine US laws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: True.
Many Christians understand that God does not determine US laws. There are many types of Christians.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: If I've said anything even half as personally condemnatory of anyone as Percy said to me, I apologize. I'm happy to condemn liberal/leftist crapola, but not people. You accused me of being a leftist, then went on and on about how stupid and blind leftists are. You're usually the first to become personal in any conversation, and you provoke personal responses by making outrageous claims about yourself, like how you're not racist or bigoted at the same time you're making racist and bigoted statements. Tell us again how you believe businesses have the right to refuse service to whoever they please and how you'd like to treat LGBT's. If you feel condemned then it was by your own words. But I'm not looking for an apology. I'm only encouraging you to support your claims with quality sources. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: The Liberal "resistance" to Trump is unprecedented in American politics. No it isn't. The Republicans shut down the government for 16 days in 2013 over funding of the Affordable Care Act. Liberal resistance to Trump has a long way to go before it comes anywhere close to something like that.
It's no wonder we're sick and tired of the totalitarian Left. You and New Cat's Eye really need to look up totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What really happened was that Trump issued an executive order rescinding the Obama guidelines that protected LGBT use of the restrooms of their gender identity. Obama's guidelines weren't what protected them. Title IX is what, still, protects them. The guidelines were just help on interpreting that law. The law says that schools can't discriminate based on sex, and now kids are saying that their gender is different from their sex, so the schools we're looking to the feds to tell them how to handle it (presumably so they don't loose federal funding).
This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline. Not really. The guidelines didn't prevent legislation or add anything to the already existing law, it just helped the schools know what to do to keep their legal obligations. Rescinding the guidelines doesn't take away anything. The schools can still follow them if they need help figuring out how to keep their legal obligations.
Like Faith, I think you need to look up totalitarianism. Well, strictly speaking, there's the form of government. But there's also political tactics that can be totalitarian in nature. I think looking to the feds to provide you with how to think about something is pretty totalitarian.
The question is whether LGBT's should have the right to use the bathroom of their gender identity, or whether other people's right to have their bathroom used only by people of their physical sex overrides. Whichever way current law sways, neither side is totalitarian. It's the approach: "this is kinda hard to figure out, big brother please help me!"
The guidelines still exist, and didn't add anything to the law anyways. Uh, yes they did. A number of states were considering legislation that would have restricted LGBT bathroom access. From the guidelines document, itself:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Google it. This is really scummy dirty tricks politics. Is anything in the report false? If not, then why would you describe telling the exact truth as "really scummy dirty tricks politics"? ... oh, right, 'cos you're a conservative, and in your world only dirty scummy people stoop so low as to tell the truth. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: So when trans people are arrested for using the correct bathroom, they're hallucinating it? They weren't actually arrested? They simply hyperventilated the cops coming in? Strange how "take your business elsewhere" was declared unconstitutional. Are you saying we should do away with anti-discrimination law? You *do* have the right to deny people on the basis of race, sex, religion, marital status, veteran status, etc.? Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter? Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out.
quote: Strange how all those capitalists seemed to think that the money of Jews and blacks wasn't any good. Where?
So we seem to have a problem: You think the world is populated with these automatons known as "capitalists," but that seems to conflict with the reality that the world is instead populated by things known as "humans" and they are known to be bigots. Even a bigoted capitalist will take your money, or if not, they'll go out of business.
So what do we as a society do with that fact? Yelp. We don't need federal laws to figure this out.
So what do we as a society do with that fact? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Tough"? Too bad if you're black or Jewish or gay or a woman. You need to find the mythical city of "Capitalism" that will stop discriminating against you. Of course, that doesn't address all the other places in life that are infected with bigotry such as the law, employment, housing, education, etc., but at least you can know that in "Capitalism," you're money will be good. Assuming you have any. The income inequality in "Capitalism" is quite disastrous, you know. You won't be one of the ones making any money there, after all. You go to a restaurant. They served you spoiled food. You certainly don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You leave and you go somewhere else. And you still call the health department. The restaurant is not allowed to serve spoiled food due to the regulations on food preparation and service. That's the contract that you signed by opening a restaurant. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense. So when you are denied service in violation of anti-discrimination laws, you go somewhere else. And you still call the business regulatory agency. The business is not allowed to discriminate due to the anti-discrimination laws. That's the contract that you signed by opening a business. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense. Yup, that's a totalitarian tactic. I'm just saying we don't need it.
Your bigotry is showing. So's yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's ridiculous. In what way? If a good Christian hotelier is prohibited from gay people with a bed for sexing on, why would it be OK for a furniture store? And if the prohibition applies to beds, why not to couches or carpets? And if the prohibition applies to gay sex, why not all the other sins? For example, before selling an office chair, shouldn't a devout Christian check that no-one's going to be committing usury in it? If not, why not? (Of course, we know why not, but you can't admit it.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And when most of your customers will take their business elsewhere if you allow black people or gays to patronize your establishment, then the invisible hand in Capitalism will in fact reinforce the problem, not fix it. Is that happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out. You mean the same way they sorted out racial segregation? (which presumably must have originated during the little-discussed Communist era of American history, or capitalists and the free market would never have let it arise in the first place).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out. You mean the same way they sorted out racial segregation? No, in a different way. Today, we have near instantaneous communication between practically all of the potential patrons of an establishment, and if there is even a hint of bigotry the public jumps all over the business and calls them out. We really don't need a state giving us laws in order to figure this out. Also, racial segregation was mandated by the state by law. It wasn't just a bunch of mean ol' capitalists trying to limit their business opportunities. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think looking to the feds to provide you with how to think about something is pretty totalitarian. When the topic is how to think about what the policies of the federal government are, then the federal government is kind of uniquely qualified to tell you how to think about that. Of course, people are free to take a wild guess instead. You call that totalitarian? That's like saying "John is so henpecked, he lets his wife tell him what to think about what her favorite foods are instead of making up his own mind about what she likes to eat."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024