Posted on 04/03/2015 9:01:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We discriminate other people's BEHAVIOR all the time. We teach our children to discriminate on behavior, gays do it too.
The ultimate issue is this -- ARE WE GOING TO CRIMINALIZE DISCRIMINATING ON BEHAVIOR?
If you say "yes", then you are against freedom and liberty and THAT is un-American.
I’ll attend but with a gift, a set of Carolina Reaper pepper flavored edible underwear for both the groom and the other groom...
Ahh, but what are you going to give two brides? (HEH HEH ).
this whole issue boils down top this key concept- A restaurant is NOT violating their religious beliefs when they serve a gay person- eating is not an engagement in a sinful activity- but when a gay person demands that the eatery participate in the gay person and crew celebrating a sinful activity, then the gay person has crossed the line and violated the religious rights of the eatery- (I didn’t say it very well, but basically once you begin forcing someone, via court order, to engage with you in a sinful activity, you are violating their rights)
As I posted in another thread, a bit earlier:
Let me point out something that is obvious, yet virtually overlooked in this latest example of Leftist bully tactics.
Most Conservative spokesmen today--most Conservative organizations in America today--take an approach to the battle which basically concedes what the Left has already accomplished in its assault on personal responsibility & individual liberty. Most only seek to hold a line that yields no more.
Thus only a few of us still insist that the whole fabric of legislation that forbids discrimination against various protected classifications by private individuals & private businesses is wrong; fundamentally wrong in denying people the freedom to use their own property for what were always legal purposes in the past. We after all, as free people, have always claimed the right to make our own decisions--that is to discriminate in our personal choices. It is not something aimed against any group; rather a right that all free men & women have in common.
When Conservative spokesmen concede the past campaigns' ever broadening the list of protected categories--broadening the limitations on other peoples' choices; they create a situation where the Left can only continue--successfully continue--to ever more aggressively push the envelope. Their strategy--those who supposedly speak for us--gurantees defeat. It surrenders a major part of the primary argument on our side, i.e. personal freedom in one's own choices, while allowing the foe to pick targets one at a time, while citing the previous now conceded triumphs in restricting the rest of us, as a precedent.
Can anyone imagine fighting a war, where every bit of territory previously gained by the foe, is forever conceded to the foe? How long would it be, with such a method of engagement, before the result was total conquest of the idiots employing that methodology?
Instead, please consider adopting this approach: "Civil Rights" Or Personal Freedom.
Another obvious advantage of a realistic counter-attack that concedes nothing, is that it avoids the necessity of appearing as anti-anyone--something that much of the youth has been conditioned to reject without analysis.
William Flax
I've also seen videos of "gay pride" parades.
If that's what they're "proud" I sure as hell wouldn't want to be around if there's any chance they'll do something they're not proud of.
Let’s just say it - this issue isn’t about homos at all.
It’s about Christians. Homos are simply the vehicle by which the left can criminalize belief.
You are discriminating against the people organizing the activity. And that is not always wrong or illegal.
I said this same thing yesterday and was soundly criticized for being wrong. Then I posted the language of the "modified" bill and was proven correct.
Pence caved. For the "changes" they made which essentially neutered the intent of the law, they may as well have just repealed the whole thing.
Homo's can still sue any PRIVATE BUSINESS who refuses to participate in any activities --- including baking a cake --- for a gay wedding.
Call that what you will, I call it FORCED LABOR of Christians for a vocal minority.
That ain't right.
Just like refusing the same two man access to the women's restroom is different then refusing them access to any restroom.
if a black man can be allow a black baker to refuse making a white man a cake with the N-word message. then a Christian can refuse a gay a wedding cake messing...
“Discrimination” is another word that has lost its original meaning. At one time, having a discriminating taste, meant the person was of refined nature, and had used critical thinking at arriving on the decision to use or not use a particular product, or behavior, as the reasoned conclusion of prior consideration.
A word of similar but not the same meaning, is “distinction”, the ability to identify a set of behaviors or produced services, that was considered to be better than the average quality. But now, it has become the level of thinking that there are no characteristics that are “better” than others, that everything is morally equivalent.
That is by itself distinctly discriminatory.
This is absolutely incorrect. The proposed revised statute mentions sexual orientation as a protected class for the first time under Indiana law. As such, it clearly has thee exact opposite effect as it was originally intended - it strengthens the "discrimination" claim when a business refuses to participate in a homosexual wedding.
Also, I agree with the author's take on "discrimination", where he or she is clearly referring to the legal definition, not the common one. Having "discriminating tastes" used to mean one had good taste. That is the common definition.
Now that we have TOLERATED their lifestyle, they demand we CELEBRATE it as well. NOPE. NO WAY.
Agreed. I discriminate every day and I especially discriminate between a heterosexual lifestyle and that of the living hell of a sodomite.
I generally don’t acknowledge second weddings. In my circles, I’ve only had to think about it a couple times. I think I only know of one close friend who got divorced.
I refused to attend the second wedding of a cousin. I told her the batteries in the clock I gave her for her first wedding were still good.
Muslims have to give up having sex with their sheep when they get married which is probably why so many of them join ISIS because of their frustration and anger...
Discriminate is the act of making a choice and is natural. If I don’t want to participate in a clam bumper or sodomy performer wedding, its my choice to not do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.