The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Yes.Man and woman.

The victims and witnesses of those benign actions disagree. I wish. Unfortunately they also refuse people service, dehumanize them, argue they don't deserve life saving medical intervention, harass them, vandalize their property and try to exclude them from society and
deny people freedom and equality.This is not benign. One might say it is totalitarian. Like when they force little girls to go the little boys room. In Oregon it has been unlawful to discriminate your services based on group membership for over a decade. I haven't seen a single person even suggest you should be penalized for saying otherwise. It took us decades of yelling and demanding and so on to get the law that made discrimination in public accommodation passed. You'd think if that's what anybody wanted, we'd already have been yelling and demanding it. They gay marriage law is called the 14th Amendment. So basically you are saying that there hasn't been a conflict until 1868. The actual law you running into problems with is anti-discrimination in business. I understand that it is harder to run a propaganda campaign against the 14th Amendment, it's harder to run a propaganda campaign arguing against 'anti-discrimination in business' laws. But when you try to re-cast the truth you will continue to find me correcting you. You say it isn't important, but the fact that you repeatedly do it, suggests that you do think it is important.

Why do you impute those things to Christians? There are plenty of gay-hating nonChristians.And the only vandalism I'm aware of in this connection is what the lovely LGBT community did to the property of the Kleins.Legal gay marriage and nothing else is the only secular law that has ever conflicted with Christian teaching that I know of. That's it, no other form of "discrimination" despite your efforts to blur things.Gay marriage is IT. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is simply a matter of either your ignorance or purposeful dishonesty. Christian teachings have been used as the excuse for discrimination and laws that prevented such discrimination have been opposed based on Christian teachings almost since Paul started marketing his new religion. The law allowing blacks to be citizens was opposed as being against God's law, the same goes for interracial marriage, being considered a Native American, Jews holding office, Roman Catholics holding office, Italians and Irish even getting jobs.Christianity has been extremely successful at genocide, bigotry and discrimination including bigotry towards other chapters of Club Christian.But again, where is there any evidence of the existence of any Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right?

Because people who refer to their Bible and call themselves Christian did those things. So the anti discrimination laws that the Klein's ran afoul of during a time in a place when there was not legal gay marriage did not conflict with your understanding of Christian teaching? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's be more - there was last time Christians claimed that. But regardless - the removal of unlawful prohibitions against gay marriage is not the issue that Christian service providers have run afoul of.

No, there WAS no discrimination against them as gays. Only the request for service for a gay wedding is what was refused. Now that I am aware of the bigger historical context I see that what happened is that they were wrongly convicted of discrimination against gay people, when what they were doing was denying a service, period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't care what stupid nonbiblical ideas some Christians had, I'mnot ever talking about those false ideas. The Bible hasnothing agtainst interracial marriage and in fact supports it with the idea that we're all descended from the same set of parents and your constantlyh repeating that stupidity is just sstupid in itself.There is no conflict between any of the other laqws you mention either. Yes if we were the Protestant country thye colonies w2ere then we would have laws limiting the political power of other religions, of course. But we are part of a nation that supports even dangerous religions, and there is no conflict with those laws as such. As I keep saying.Just gay marriage.And stop insulting Paul. He's worth a hundred of you. In fact one of you is way too much.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, selectively denying service to them is discrimination. Well, you get to make your argument that the conviction was wrongful, but I don't see how. Denying a service in this fashion is discriminatory, so you have a lot of work to do to convince me anything totalitarian was going on here.Now about those bathroom bills....?

But that again is simply not rue Faith. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to limit discrimination from some of the Protestant sects, specifically the crazy as bedbugs Puritans.Pennsylvania was not a Protestant colony.Virginia was not a Protestant colony.Georgia was not a Protestant colony.Maryland was not a Protestant colony.The First Amendment was created to try to make sure that the Protestants could not pass laws limiting the power of other religions, Thank God.

All the states you list were basically Protestant except Maryland.The First Amendment was to protect all denominations from each other, contrary to your anti-Protestant/ anti-Christian bias. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually no Faith. Virginia was a secular commercial venture, the Virginia Company.Maryland was a Roman Catholic refuge.Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony.Georgia was a prison colony.Yet yes, the goal of the First Amendment was to protect all religions including Jews and Muslims and Hindus and other Christians against discrimination by any Christian sect.But you still have not presented any evidence that there is any "Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right" or shown that I have any anti-Protestant/ anti-Christian bias. Since I happen to be a Protestant Christian the latter is a particularly silly assertion on your part.

Except that one man's misunderstanding is another man's complete Bible belief it appears. Well except in your case where you claim to be unerring and infallible at determining God's will.Professing your belief as the only real one is not an argument. It's just preaching.

Just saw a headline at Yahoo about the White House looking into the law about impeachment. Every day there is something on that page implying some kind of error by Trump, some kind of hot water he's supposedly in. Some of it has some truth to it but overall it's hard to escape the impression that this IS a witch hunt, that the Left has dedicated itself to getting rid of him one way or another, by fake news or tweaked news or always finding the negative in the most neutral event. There is ZERO evidence of ANY kind of "Russian collusion" and even some leftists have admitted that, but they still keep it in the headlines because it makes Trump look bad. Amazing.There's little point in even trying to prove any of this, the opinions here are completely in tune with Yahoo and other Leftist sources. Scary to think that we could have a Leftist coup, the overthrow of a legitimately elected President, against the will of half the voting population, based on absolutely nothing. Trump makes mistakes but he's never made an impeachable mistake or anything close. The question is whether his enemies can dupe the public into thinking so.There is no more America, thanks to the Left, but nobody here will see it that way. And conservatives for the most part are too truly American to do anything as underhanded as the Left is doing even though that's probably the only way they could be stopped.

No dear, that would require actual sticks and stones.

Even if the results of the current investigations warranted impeachment proceedings, it seems strange to me to call it a "leftist coup". Removal of the President would require two-thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction, and even the wildest optimistic projections don't seem to give the "leftists" that big of a margin in 2018.Plus, the conviction of Trump would make Pence the President. That's not what I would call a coup. Or if there's a deliberate plan to replace Trump with Pence, that would be a coup be the establishment conservatives, not the "leftists".Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.