Summations Only

no, but that was hilarious. Thanks for sharing.BTW those aren’t Southern Baptists, those are Freewill Baptists. No it’s a personal choice, it doesn’t have much to do with knowledge or ignorance, and it exists in the north and the south, the east and the west. Social conservatives and social liberals, racism is all over the place, if you mean racism in the vernacular. That is untrue, and a favorite character assassination technique of the left. It is not constitutional to legislate how someone feels and thinks about another person. You cannot make racism illegal. It is a travesty that the government can tell a business whom they can and cannot do business with (civil rights act 1964).

So you don't think the US Constitution should be followed by everyone in the USA?Please supply a valid argument why the government should not be able to stop businesses from discriminating?

Well, at least a little common sense prevailed:Pastor at Kentucky Church to Void Ban on Interracial Couples | Fox News

I am glad to hear you say so. For too long the tyrants in Washington have prevented me from selling nuclear weapons to Iran, and I am pleased to see that you take my side.

Show me where thoughts and feelings are being legislated against.

Really? I have no first amendment right to criticize publicly the decisions the church made. That's nonsense. They have the right to practice their religion, but they don't have any right to avoid criticism while exercising that right. No, Jar. I don't have to and in my opinion, I should not do anything like that. They can make their choice, and I can speak out against the direction they've chosen. I can applaud their pastor's successful efforts to change the policy. Given a chance, I can attempt to persuade them to change their policy.

Why?

'Cause that's how I roll.

Why should you have anything to say about whether or not a church holds any particular internal policy as long as it is not harming anyone against their will?Do you actually support the First Amendment?

Surely you jest.First of all, I'm not the government, so by definition, I cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights. Second, I have my own first amendment rights, and I'm not afraid to use them.In turn, the church can elect to ignore whatever I say. But the idea that I don't even have the right to criticize or persuade them to change is facially ridiculous.I'm exercising my first amendment rights right now. Why should you have anything at all to say about that?

I'm asking whether or not you actually support the First Amendment, not whether or not you take advantage of it.The way you actually support the First Amendment is by standing up for those others using the First Amendment that you most disagree with.Of course you have the right to comment on their behavior, that was never in question.What I asked was, "What makes their behavior any of your business?"

I made it my business. What makes my behavior your business?I support the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that I cannot attempt to dissuade people from using their first amendment rights in ways I find offensive. In fact that is exactly what you are trying to do.Quite frankly, I find this discussion silly. This is my last post along these lines.

You initiated a conversation here at EvC by posting in this thread.The nature of a conversation is response.It really is that simple.Of course you are also free to walk away from a conversation.However so far the only support you have presented are that the First Amendment protects you (which was never in question) and that "You made it YOUR business" (which does not answer the question "why is it any of your business").

Was there anything I wrote that suggested I think that way? Yes, absolutely right. That's why we see conservatives demonstrating in support of abortion rights and homosexual rights. That's why we see conservatives insisting that nominees to the supreme court should support abortion rights. Sure, right. The view of people in linguistics and in philosophy of language seems to be that words get their meaning from the way they are generally used in the population. Maybe you should check the meaning of "conservative" as it is used in comtemporary America.

Jar. I've responded and answered every one of your questions. After the second round you are simply repeating the same questions with slightly different wording.The answer is quite simple. I have every right to express my disagreement with someone else's doctrine. In this case the doctrine was to ostracize church members and their families for no good reason.Apparently, you seem to believe that being critical of the church's doctrine or being supportive of internal attempts to change that doctrine by the pastor is beyond the pale. I think that position is idiotic.I've answered the best way I know how, and also expressed my impression that your questions did not make much sense.Unless you have some better questions, I'm done.