Posted on 02/12/2014 10:25:08 PM PST by Olog-hai
A new bill was recently introduced in the Tennessee State Legislature that, if passed, would allow people and businesses to refuse to provide goods and services to homosexuals.
It was filed by State Sen. Brian Kelsey, who represents Memphis and Germantown.
The bill notes that businesses can refuse services and goods only if it furthers a civil union, domestic partnership, or same-sex marriage. The person or business would just have to say it was against their religion. …
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxmemphis.com ...
Me? I’m not the one who got flustered because they couldn’t answer a counterpoint and spewed four posts in a row of nonsense. Your bruised ego is showing.
I’m with ya ... and we both know that equality of respect is not possible by legislation since it is a learned characteristic of people with character. The booger will now try to bait you into rash responses which will doubtless be dragged and pasted at other more comfy liberal websites. Some braying asses are better ignored.
You never HAD a counterpoint, and you as much as admitted that.
It’s you who are being defensive. Your lack of specificity reveals that in neon brightness.
We have to watch what happens with our institutions because if they go looey, they can lead a lot of others astray.
It was painful to God that many of the otherwise illustrious houses of faith in the South (I’m thinking of Southern Baptist for one) went along as long as they did with weird theology that put the black segment of the human race down for no good reason, a historical vestige of antebellum slave days. Bible passages such as that about the mark of Cain were twisted to torture. The SBC finally formally chucked that notion out a decade or so ago, and that was like cutting a chain that was holding down a spiritual skyrocket. I’ve watched miracles in Baptist circles since then. In a “hick” area of Maryland, I played piano for a few weeks at a Baptist church that was 1/3 black and never saw a racial issue even brought up. (I like to say that rednecks come in many colors.) Only the power of God can do this. No ham handed human “Boogie” law can.
I never made any counterpoint about restricting people's freedom, that was the context of that statement. The counterpoint I'm referring to which you can't refute was in post #42. You just couldn't admit you were wrong that it was all due to government coercion, so you blathered on for five posts being evasive, then insulting, instead of admitting your error.
You’ve been here long enough to know you aught to ping people when you are going to talk about them.
How about when you learn to spell, I’ll start pinging you, if the mood suits me.
Oh, what did I mispell?
‘ought’ ... How old are you?
English not your first language?
Ah, well thanks for the correction. I’ll let you go back to your gossip now.
One mispelled word would lead you to believe that about a person? Interesting.
Let’s go back to your original complaint. That there used to be an effort en masse to legislate restrictions upon black people.
You argued, as best as can be seen, that this means we need to crack down on individual choices.
Then you tried to back out of it with quibbles. I nailed you to the ground four different ways and you STILL tried.
You look ridiculous.
SO BASICALLY, BOOGIE
When you abandon the personal attacks, then you won’t be spotlighted as mendacious yourself any more.
Let me also point out that if this is as high as you can rise, Boogie, to hammer on an inconsequential quibble for your own ego’s sake, you are in pitiful shape. Can you rise any higher? Black people had risen higher just before the end of Jim Crow than they are today with today’s plentiful welfare and affirmative action.
To wallow in past blames is to absolutely guarantee you won’t rise higher. There’s this pesky God out there that doesn’t go away even if you never darken a church’s door. You get judged in the way you judge, by the very Creator and Sustainer of the universe. I hope better things for you than what you’ve been wallowing in, Boogie.
Wrong, I never made that complaint. If I did, go ahead and quote me making it.
I merely stated that free exercise of the right can cause problems. You were the one who brought up legislation, when you claimed wrongly that all the past problems were caused by government coercion.
"You argued, as best as can be seen, that this means we need to crack down on individual choices."
I never did this either. If I did, you'll be able to quote me saying it, instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
"Then you tried to back out of it with quibbles. I nailed you to the ground four different ways and you STILL tried."
No, you made an incorrect argument, and I refuted it in post #42, which you haven't been able to answer yet.
“When you abandon the personal attacks, then you won’t be spotlighted as mendacious yourself any more.”
Hmm, who made the first personal attack in this conversation, remind me?
“Let me also point out that if this is as high as you can rise, Boogie, to hammer on an inconsequential quibble for your own ego’s sake, you are in pitiful shape.”
I’m hammering on it, because you never addressed it, and that was the point after which you began to derail the conversation with evasion, insults, and mischaracterizations. I don’t want to indulge in that, so I’m going to keep pointing back to my unanswered point until you get back on track, or get tired of this other nonsense you are railing on about.
If you are bent on personal attack, go right ahead. But deem yourself unanswered, and if you pride yourself on that so what. It is a cheap pride.
Oh, and this is what seems to have happened to your ego:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3123797/posts
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.