Religious Right in Arizona Cheer bill that allows them to not act like Jesus would...

jpx7 said:
Obviously that's the correct gloss of 22:10. However, I always read 22:11 as a proscription of wet-suits and the like—the Abrahamic god's anti-snorkel clause.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was being facetious. But people DO argue those points. Deuteronomy is a favorite of theirs. Leviticus is another. #realchristiansdontsnorkel
 
Dalyn said:
Not all. And that is why that whole argument really doesn't make much sense once you think about it.
Click to expand...

Procreation is the number one rule in marriage. That is the very nature of my argument.

I heard zito throw the sterile meaning out there. Well there are people who thought they were sterile and then have kids, but I know for a guaranteed fact that two males can't have a baby by natural means nor two females unless they are a new species of human. The only human known to have a baby without sperm was Mary and even that is iffy to me. She would be National Inquire material if that happened today.
 
AerchAngel said:
Procreation is the number one rule in marriage. That is the very nature of my argument.

I heard zito throw the sterile meaning out there. Well there are people who thought they were sterile and then have kids, but I know for a guaranteed fact that two males can't have a baby by natural means nor two females unless they are a new species of human. The only human known to have a baby without sperm was Mary and even that is iffy to me. She would be National Inquire material if that happened today.
Click to expand...

That is what I meant by not all. Should someone who has had a hysterectomy not be allowed to marry? etc etc It is really rather silly. And for someone who agrees with me regarding the population problem, I am surprised to see you take such a stance.
 
Dalyn said:
#ikissedafishandilikedit
Click to expand...

kanye-west-gay-fish.jpg
 
Dalyn said:
That is what I meant by not all. Should someone who has had a hysterectomy not be allowed to marry? etc etc It is really rather silly. And for someone who agrees with me regarding the population problem, I am surprised to see you take such a stance.
Click to expand...

But the word "marriage" is what I am getting at, not union which I 100 percent agree with. People of the same sex say they are married, and I will agree to that by GOVERNMENT definition for tax purposes or if a divorce is in question, but not religious in which I will refer to them as a couple or union and that will never ever ever ever ever ever change.

now for population control, we see eye to eye but I am much strict than you unless I am missing something.

Now married people who have children, usually are ones who plans it, by planning for it or by the barrel of a shotgun. Those who have kids for more money from the government, whoring around, that is where we need population control by either making them sterile until they prove they can actually take care of kids or get their dicks cut off if you don't want to be responsible.

Think of this way, movie Starship Troopers, they couldn't have kids until they were citizens and they had to prove themselves as a citizen before even thinking of procreating. I don't mind something similar to that.

And before you yahoos think I advocate abortion, no, we can even prevent, spread your legs and have an abortion because it was an oops forfeit your right as a parent, PERMANENTLY. You have no husband, no means to support, you forfeit your right until you are not a drag on society. If I have to pay for your kids, I want some say so in it.
 
Dang, you guys have been busy since I've been gone. I look forward to reading all of your pearls of wisdom. I've been thinking about the practicalities of this issue and read the following posted elsewhere which I think may have some merit.

"We have a distinction between a 'public accomodation' here (i.e. bakery which has a public storefront) versus private performance (say a wedding singer or photographer who is 'performing' in a private space).

The latter has a great deal of freedom to pick and choose their clients and set all types of conditions (i.e. "I don't do Jewish Weddings") while the former does not (i.e. "We don't serve blacks here").

As I pointed out, the storefront has less right to discriminate but still reserves the right to choose its offerings (i.e. "We don't make cakes with bride and bride or groom and groom on top")"

Makes some sense - but I still don't hold out much hope that y'all will tolerate anything like this. I doubt though that y'all will tolerate the photographer with such latitude. No, it'll be "submit, or don't do business." And I think y'all will also bitch to the point that the baker can't limit his offerings in any way that offends you and your views on LGBT issues.
 
Does a Mennonite who owns an aluminum plant have to sell his aluminum to the military knowing it will be used as a component in weaponry?

Must a Muslim who owns a public custodial business serve a bank?

[HT: First Things]
 
BedellBrave said:
Does a Mennonite who owns an aluminum plant have to sell his aluminum to the military knowing it will be used as a component in weaponry?

Must a Muslim who owns a public custodial business serve a bank?

[HT: First Things]
Click to expand...

1. Military buys things off contract, so unless he's a military contractor that isn't a problem.

2. No he doesn't have to if he wants to because

3. Business entities are not people and aren't protected by civil rights.
 
On topic -

I think private businesses should be able to do what they want (within reason). They will have to face the social consequences, of course, but I just don't see how they should have to face legal ones.
 
jpx7 said:
Well, they shouldn't be ... but the Supreme Court had some queer opinions about that.
Click to expand...

*whisper* Subtle attempt to get the conservatives to turn against those opinions. Nicely done, but I'm not sure it's going to work.
 
jpx7 said:
Civil coexistence always includes some infringement upon rights. Sometimes, it's even a good thing: my right to murder people has been substantially infringed by the government (unless it's a black teenager equipped with tell-tale hoodie, skittles, and can of iced-tea!). So, in these situations, it's useful to consider—borrowing the language of the capitalists—the relative costs and benefits of one infringement versus the other.

Is the grocer—or the baker, or the photographer—really gaining anything of much utility (beyond a petulant statement of disapproval) through the absolute preservation of their rights-of-refusal? Meanwhile: what is the customer losing in this instance? Possibly, as in my example, their only reasonable access to certain goods or services.
Click to expand...

That's the point I was making a bit earlier. And society is deciding to infringe upon this group then that. Someone loses.
 
BedellBrave said:
"We have a distinction between a 'public accomodation' here (i.e. bakery which has a public storefront) versus private performance (say a wedding singer or photographer who is 'performing' in a private space).
The latter has a great deal of freedom to pick and choose their clients and set all types of conditions (i.e. "I don't do Jewish Weddings") while the former does not (i.e. "We don't serve blacks here").
As I pointed out, the storefront has less right to discriminate but still reserves the right to choose its offerings (i.e. "We don't make cakes with bride and bride or groom and groom on top")"
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an irrelevant discrimination to make at all, actually, between these two types of business. In the same manner, I'm a lot more concerned about the government interposing protections when it comes to basic or essential businesses or services than I am about government doing anything with respect to racist private golf courses.
 
Dalyn said:
On topic -

I think private businesses should be able to do what they want (within reason). They will have to face the social consequences, of course, but I just don't see how they should have to face legal ones.
Click to expand...

+ 100000

I didn't bitch and moan when my food got served cold, waited an hour and was giving my money back with a hint don't come back here, so guess what I did, I told all my friends about it and they refuse to go to that place because picked up what I was getting at.

You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.
 
AerchAngel said:
You do not have to accept my skin color or me marrying white and I am not going to make you. Who the hell are you in the grand scheme of things? If you don't want me around, I will go to somebody who does.
Click to expand...

As Julio said, that's all very easy to say in 2014, but there was a time when "go[ing] to somebody who does" was a very difficult proposition—and, for some groups and types of people, it still is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top