I need to vent on this Duck Dynasty "Controversy".

goldfly said:
as if the street doesn't go both ways

2009-08-28-dixiechicks-thumb.jpg


both sides play the victim all the time

one side just gets to play the victim card a little more since one side is trying to make their religious view law though imo
Click to expand...

Let's see who wins.

I think you will be happy.

Btw, I hate boycotts.

Oh, and you are right one side is trying to make their views the law - at least in regards to marriage. And they are doing a pretty good job of it.
 
BedellBrave said:
What do you need help here on Julio? I said I agreed with Paglia in that GLAAD uses fascist tactics. I've indicated what those sort of tactics are. Do I really need to say that, "but, that doesn't mean that I think they are an advocacy group that promotes a fascist state"?
Click to expand...

OK, they use fascist tactics. You've indicated what those tactics are.

Examples being:

Submit and approve or beware. They'll work the politicians. They'll work the media. They'll work the corporate bigwigs. They'll work the hot-heads. They will not stop. And they'll have folks cheering them all along the way. No room for dissent in the public arena where they are concerned. No room for anything but approval.

Do I have this right?
 
Julio3000 said:
OK, they use fascist tactics. You've indicated what those tactics are.

Examples being:

Submit and approve or beware. They'll work the politicians. They'll work the media. They'll work the corporate bigwigs. They'll work the hot-heads. They will not stop. And they'll have folks cheering them all along the way. No room for dissent in the public arena where they are concerned. No room for anything but approval.

Do I have this right?
Click to expand...

Uhh plenty of groups do that...
 
Julio3000 said:
OK, they use fascist tactics. You've indicated what those tactics are.

Examples being:

Submit and approve or beware. They'll work the politicians. They'll work the media. They'll work the corporate bigwigs. They'll work the hot-heads. They will not stop. And they'll have folks cheering them all along the way. No room for dissent in the public arena where they are concerned. No room for anything but approval.

Do I have this right?
Click to expand...

Lead me down your path Julio. Play your gotcha game. Yes, others do something similar. Boycotts and the like. And when it rises to seeking to silence speech in the public domain that you don't like with intimidation across political-judicial-cultural-corporate-and-individual fronts, then yes, it's fascist tactics no matter who uses them. I'm okay with saying that.
 
I feel like you think that fighting for rights is a fascist tactic. I could totally be wrong but that's where it's coming from for me.
 
zitothebrave said:
I feel like you think that fighting for rights is a fascist tactic. I could totally be wrong but that's where it's coming from for me.
Click to expand...

Don't think he agrees with homosexuality so therefore there's no rights to be fought for.

At least that's what I assume from the other thread.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Don't think he agrees with homosexuality so therefore there's no rights to be fought for.

At least that's what I assume from the other thread.
Click to expand...

I think homosexual practice is sin (along with a whole bunch of other sins of course). I think marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. But I also know that others disagree with my definition and that the broader definitions have been and will continue to be adopted. And if the LGBT want to pursue the legalization of their definition, it is perfectly within their rights to do so. And as the government legalizes it, so be it.

What do you two not get?
 
I think Bedell fears that his church's and other church's rights will be infringed upon, which I really don't think will ever happen and so far the Supreme Court has upheld a church's right to marry who they want to.

For example, the catholic church will not marry you if you've been divorced. Legally in America you can get divorced. The US government in it's nearly 240 years has not forced the catholic church to marry someone who's been divorced.
 
zitothebrave said:
I think Bedell fears that his church's and other church's rights will be infringed upon, which I really don't think will ever happen and so far the Supreme Court has upheld a church's right to marry who they want to.

For example, the catholic church will not marry you if you've been divorced. Legally in America you can get divorced. The US government in it's nearly 240 years has not forced the catholic church to marry someone who's been divorced.
Click to expand...

Haven't I made my point clear enough?

The "homo-lobby" is not interested in tolerance of dissenting opinions in the public arena. They want them silenced. They only want voiced approval. And so, they will go after anyone who publicly dissents. And to use someone else's metaphor, they are piling up scalps.

Oh, and there isn't so much a divorced-lobby.

Z, I hope you are right and that's what you guys tell me. But what I see happening in other countries (and I don't think our "exceptionalism" will spare us) and what I see happening to the baker in CO and the photographer in NM, makes me think otherwise.

P.S. I'm toying with the idea of refusing to serve as an officer of the State in wedding ceremonies in the future. I will officiate at a wedding, but the couple will also need to get a justice of the peace or some other official do what is necessary for State recognition of their union.
 
In other words you want "those" people off your lawn. (with a fist shake for emphasis)

How many homosexual couples have asked you to perform their wedding? My guess is (with all due respect) they are not knocking down your door
Get over yourself my friend before you give yourself a stroke
This ship has sailed
 
57Brave said:
In other words you want "those" people off your lawn. (with a fist shake for emphasis)

How many homosexual couples have asked you to perform their wedding? My guess is (with all due respect) they are not knocking down your door
Get over yourself my friend before you give yourself a stroke
This ship has sailed
Click to expand...

I hope I can always get over myself friend, cause myself is full of sin.

You really though don't know me, nor the ones I love, nor the ones I minister to, nor the ones I have officiated at their funerals. So you might not want to be too quick to assume.

My point still stands, whether you or others want to avoid it. Public dissent will meet the furry of the GLAAD crowd. And I just don't think that's really good for our nation.

I prefer the sentiments of the dad of a good friend of mine:

"It was many years ago when my Dad and I had a very serious talk about the First Amendment. The Klan was rallying on and around the court square in …., and he explained to me that even the KKK had the right of free speech. He told me "We will never, ever agree with what they say, but they do have the right to say it." "

And yes, I know this isn't about the First Amendment. See upthread.

Oh, and the homosexual couple could have gone to another baker too...
 
I'm gonna address your baker and photographer

For the photographer it's simple, she runs a business, New Mexico has a law that it is illegal for a business to refuse service to someone because of race, religion, sex, color, national origin, ancestry, or sexual orientation. It's really about as clean cut as possible, it's a simple civil rights law. Do you think it's OK for a restaurateur to be able to refuse service to someone because they're a catholic? Irish? Black? Etc. I know what sturg will say of course.

The colorado one is not as cut and dry on the state level, but the ruling basically is that someone cannot pick and choose who to serve based on race religion orientation, etc. The same idea behind having the right to serve an interacial marriage or a black couple, etc.

The basic ruling in Colorado was that the defense couldn't build a strong enough case for why not to serve them,

From Denver POst article
"It's not as if a baker is necessarily obliged to follow a customer's every request. As the judge noted, Phillips' attorney raised the specter of a black baker being required "to make a cake bearing a white supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation" and an Islamic baker being required "to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.""

Basically the judge ruled if the customers requested something absurd like "*** Marriage is A-OK" or something like that than maybe he'd have some ground. BUt just outright refusing is not OK. I don't think you can really disagree with that?
 
And that's the point….

Their 'rights' trump the religious convictions of these individuals.

And instead of just going to another photographer or baker, they chose to go to court and they won. Hoorah!

Discrimination laws, "hate speech" legislation, etc. are/will-be the tools of choice.
 
But it's not the point. You're not a religious institution as a baker or photographer. You're not a church, you don't have the same protected rights as a church. Just like how a church doesn't have the same rights as an individual.
 
Sure it's the point. I don't think the church's "protected rights" will last. And why? Because this is about approval, not tolerance.

The church's present legal status is the product of a by-gone era.
 
BedellBrave said:
And that's the point….

Their 'rights' trump the religious convictions of these individuals.

And instead of just going to another photographer or baker, they chose to go to court and they won. Hoorah!

Discrimination laws, "hate speech" legislation, etc. are/will-be the tools of choice.
Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 7:3

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

So you think that it's OK for said Baker to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple? And discriminate based on race? Something that's not allowed by law in the USA?

Again we're not talking about churches or religious institutions, we're talking talking about businesses in the private sector.
 
zitothebrave said:
Deuteronomy 7:3

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

So you think that it's OK for said Baker to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple? And discriminate based on race? Something that's not allowed by law in the USA?

Again we're not talking about churches or religious institutions, we're talking talking about businesses in the private sector.
Click to expand...

You don't really want to go there do you Z? I mean we can if you'd like.
 
BedellBrave said:
Sure it's the point. I don't think the church's "protected rights" will last. And why? Because this is about approval, not tolerance.

The church's present legal status is the product of a by-gone era.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you Bedell but in the end we'll have to wait and see. I know many folks in the LGBT community, they personally care about their rights in the country not in a particular church.
 
zitothebrave said:
I have to disagree with you Bedell but in the end we'll have to wait and see. I know many folks in the LGBT community, they personally care about their rights in the country not in a particular church.
Click to expand...

I know we do Z. And that's okay. I do appreciate your, what seems to be to me, concern for my concern. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top