LMAO As World Glides By Conks - ACA, Gay Marriage, Etc

[kalm]

Unelected, activist judges.

No again, that would be last week...

Thank you for making my point.

[Grizalltheway]

Oh, so if the founders hated and marginalized homos, we should too?

Is that what freedom of religion is about, to you?

You're a retard.

I am a retard, but only because I skipped over JSO's post assuming it had something to do with the SCOTUS ruling, which doesn't force any church to perform same sex marriages.

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

[Ibanez]

Is that what freedom of religion is about, to you?

You're a retard.

I am a retard, but only because I skipped over JSO's post assuming it had something to do with the SCOTUS ruling, which doesn't force any church to perform same sex marriages.

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

They do now

[JohnStOnge]

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

Yes. And it's not a guise. It's really the free exercise of religion.

Besides, it's not only due to religious freedom. It's also because of the right to engage or not engage in commerce with whoever you wish to engage in commerce with or not engage in commerce with.

This thing that happened with the Civil Rights Act where we went down the road of forcing people to engage in commerce with people they don't want to engage in commerce with is wrong. When you engage in commerce whether you are on the selling or buying side you should be able to decide who you'll engage in commerce with for any reason you want. It should be none of government's business.

This country is supposed to be about Liberty. It's not supposed to be about some kind of "right" you have to force other people to interact with you. WHY do you think you have the "right" to force other people to interact with you?

I mean, when you really stand back and look at it for what it is and if you have any respect at all for Liberty it's an absurd concept.

With the burka thing if you don't want your wife to have to wear a burka don't eat in that friggin' restaurant. Don't friggin' take the position that the owner of the restaurant should be FORCED to serve you if your wife doesn't wear a burka.

[AZGrizFan]

Is that what freedom of religion is about, to you?

You're a retard.

I am a retard, but only because I skipped over JSO's post assuming it had something to do with the SCOTUS ruling, which doesn't force any church to perform same sex marriages.

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

Liberals in America would fully support that, while at the same time supporting the forcing of a cake shop owner to make a cake for a gay couple despite the cake shop owner's religious beliefs. Because one guy is Muslim and the other guy is a Christian, and we all know who the liberal believes is the bigger threat to America.

[Grizalltheway]

Cool story. You gonna answer the question?

[D1B]

I am a retard, but only because I skipped over JSO's post assuming it had something to do with the SCOTUS ruling, which doesn't force any church to perform same sex marriages.

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

Liberals in America would fully support that, while at the same time supporting the forcing of a cake shop owner to make a cake for a gay couple despite the cake shop owner's religious beliefs. Because one guy is Muslim and the other guy is a Christian, and we all know who the liberal believes is the bigger threat to America.

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

[AZGrizFan]

Cool story. You gonna answer the question?

The answer is yes.

[AZGrizFan]

Liberals in America would fully support that, while at the same time supporting the forcing of a cake shop owner to make a cake for a gay couple despite the cake shop owner's religious beliefs. Because one guy is Muslim and the other guy is a Christian, and we all know who the liberal believes is the bigger threat to America.

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Christian fundamentalists won't make cakes for gay marriages. Muslim extremists behead, drown, light on fire and blow up those they disagree with. Yeah. They're the same thing. Just assholes, right?

[Grizalltheway]

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Christian fundamentalists won't make cakes for gay marriages. Muslim extremists behead, drown, light on fire and blow up those they disagree with. Yeah. They're the same thing. Just assholes, right?

So who are these liberals defending Muslims who do that stuff?

[houndawg]

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Christian fundamentalists won't make cakes for gay marriages. Muslim extremists behead, drown, light on fire and blow up those they disagree with. Yeah. They're the same thing. Just assholes, right?

Eric Rudolph.

[Grizalltheway]

Christian fundamentalists won't make cakes for gay marriages. Muslim extremists behead, drown, light on fire and blow up those they disagree with. Yeah. They're the same thing. Just assholes, right?

Eric Rudolph.

I posted this article in a different thread, but conks didn't seem to have much to say about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opini ... inion&_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gil Dobie]

FIFY. Its ok now to say liberal...

Cool!

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

It's same sex marriage, straight people of the same sex can be married. Gay's could get married and did get married prior to same sex marriage, it just broadened the definition of marriage.

[Gil Dobie]

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Okay Pole Dancer fan, where do you draw the line? I'm on the side of serving all. Liberals didn't protect decent Muslims in the taxi driver case. The ALCU sided with the people being denied service, not the Muslims.

Link

Ben writes that “there is a certain irony to the American Civil Liberties Union fighting against an individual’s right to practice his religious preferences.” Well, not really. A few years ago, Muslim cab drivers working out of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were refusing to transport people carrying blind persons with guide dogs on religious grounds. The Muslim drivers also refused to serve people who were carrying duty free alcohol purchased at the airport. When this came to light the ACLU sided with those who were being denied service arguing it was a question of public access. While much of what the ACLU does leaves a great deal to be desired, they have been very consistent on this issue.

I have made this argument before and it bears repeating. In a country built on free enterprise people should not be denied goods and services if they have the money to pay for them. With this in mind, the Christian baker is every bit as wrong to not make a wedding cake for a gay couple as the Muslim cab driver is wrong not to transport passengers who need guide dogs or are carrying a bottle of Beaujolais.

[Grizalltheway]

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Okay Pole Dancer fan, where do you draw the line? I'm on the side of serving all. Liberals didn't protect decent Muslims in the taxi driver case. The ALCU sided with the people being denied service, not the Muslims.

Link

Ben writes that “there is a certain irony to the American Civil Liberties Union fighting against an individual’s right to practice his religious preferences.” Well, not really. A few years ago, Muslim cab drivers working out of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were refusing to transport people carrying blind persons with guide dogs on religious grounds. The Muslim drivers also refused to serve people who were carrying duty free alcohol purchased at the airport. When this came to light the ACLU sided with those who were being denied service arguing it was a question of public access. While much of what the ACLU does leaves a great deal to be desired, they have been very consistent on this issue.

I have made this argument before and it bears repeating. In a country built on free enterprise people should not be denied goods and services if they have the money to pay for them. With this in mind, the Christian baker is every bit as wrong to not make a wedding cake for a gay couple as the Muslim cab driver is wrong not to transport passengers who need guide dogs or are carrying a bottle of Beaujolais.

Projecting your religious beliefs onto others doesn't make you decent, it makes you an asshole.

[Gil Dobie]

Projecting your religious beliefs onto others doesn't make you decent, it makes you an asshole.

You can take the work "Religious" out of there as far as I'm concerned. Most people projecting their beliefs on others are assholes.

[houndawg]

Oh nos! A massive attack on superstitious nonsense! Whatever shall we do!

Yep. Superstitious nonsense. One of the tenets on which this country was founded. No big deal, though, right?

Our knowledge has increased in the past 300 years.

[CAA Flagship]

Is that what freedom of religion is about, to you?

You're a retard.

I am a retard, but only because I skipped over JSO's post assuming it had something to do with the SCOTUS ruling, which doesn't force any church to perform same sex marriages.

But still, say a restaurant owner was a fundamentalist Muslin who didn't allow women in without a burka and a man accompanying them. Would you support their right to do that under the guise of religious freedom?

Well NO FUCKING SHIT.





You know I couldn't let that one go.

[AZGrizFan]

Yep. Superstitious nonsense. One of the tenets on which this country was founded. No big deal, though, right?

Our knowledge has increased in the past 300 years.

So, you're a believer that religious freedom should NOT be a tenet any longer?

[Grizalltheway]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

[kalm]

Our knowledge has increased in the past 300 years.

So, you're a believer that religious freedom should NOT be a tenet any longer?

You didn't originally say "religious freedom".

Define freedom.

[Chizzang]

Ah...
I do enjoy the old "catch 22" of this situation
Its a tricky son-of-a-bitch to wrap your head around

In my logical brain (which needs some work)
I imagine a situation where John is correct and people should be "free to discriminate"
as long as it is in their own place of business and not affiliated with government
The whole "no soup for you" mentality

in my Liberal brain (which I try to ignore as much as possible because it's emotionally charged)
I imagine a situation where peoples of all races and creeds live in harmony and butterflies
(plus sodomy)



Honestly Its a nightmare...

[Grizalltheway]

You had me at sodomy.

[bandl]

Ah...
I do enjoy the old "catch 22" of this situation
Its a tricky son-of-a-bitch to wrap your head around

In my logical brain (which needs some work)
I imagine a situation where John is correct and people should be "free to discriminate"
as long as it is in their own place of business and not affiliated with government
The whole "no soup for you" mentality

in my Liberal brain (which I try to ignore as much as possible because it's emotionally charged)
I imagine a situation where peoples of all races and creeds live in harmony and butterflies
(*plus* sodomy)



Honestly Its a nightmare...

*also

[CAA Flagship]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Somewhere in the Middle East.