If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 96
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1358 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-07 10:28:16 AM
12 votes:
They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.
2014-03-07 10:51:49 AM
6 votes:
Is it still ok to be in favor of gay marriage because you really don't give a rat's ass how other people live their lives?

/apathy FTW
2014-03-07 10:38:59 AM
6 votes:

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays.

In other words, your garden variety "small government" conservative.
2014-03-07 12:56:23 PM
5 votes:

SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If your region interferes with your job, get a new religion or a new job.  This isn't hard.
2014-03-07 12:44:18 PM
5 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.
2014-03-07 11:05:14 AM
5 votes:
I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.
2014-03-07 10:43:31 AM
5 votes:

Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?


It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."
2014-03-07 10:37:38 AM
5 votes:

Nadie_AZ: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

What if I am tall and standing on a ladder pulpit?


FIFY
2014-03-07 01:56:49 PM
4 votes:
SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.
2014-03-07 01:48:20 PM
4 votes:
If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot.  Period.  And there's nothing wrong with calling you out on it.
2014-03-07 12:47:54 PM
4 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.
2014-03-07 03:06:14 PM
3 votes:
BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF!

For f*ck's sake, this is not a hard concept. I do not have to - and I will not - tolerate or be respectful of your views inasmuch as they are based on fundamental assumptions about how certain groups of people are inferior to others because of circumstances that are beyond anyone's control, i.e. race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. It is morally disgusting to hold such views, in a way that is qualitatively different than, for example, hating Raiders' fans if you're a Chargers' fan, when that kind of animosity is merely silly and inconsequential (that is, no one is seriously suggesting Raiders' fans be barred access to rights, freedoms, and liberties in the United States on account of being a Raiders' fan). You want to hate on someone because of a fundamental attribute of their being? Go f*ck yourself. I hope you rot, and I will not show you respect. You don't deserve any. You should be made to feel guilty, and ashamed, and embarrassed to hold such views because they are wrong on every conceivable level.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of the "tone" argument. "Oh, could you be a little more polite when responding to people who hate blacks/gays/women and want to strip them of their rights/prevent them from having rights? That'd be great." F*ck you. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by MLK Jr.:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

The denial of equality in this country for certain groups of people based on characteristics that are amoral (that is, neither good nor bad) and beyond the control of anyone should enrage people of conscience. But, it seems, there are still those recipients of (white/straight/male) privilege who agree in principle with equality but in practice don't want to be inconvenienced with having to stress out over dealing with how to effect change for the better. They see these arguments and debates as abstract hypotheticals, and not very real situations with very real consequences for very real people. And to them I also say "Go f*ck yourself."

/seriously hoping I used those apostrophes correctly
2014-03-07 01:56:28 PM
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Should gay people continue to pay the taxes that allows those wedding photographers to live in a stable, modern society where something like "wedding photography" can be a means to earn a living?
2014-03-07 01:52:10 PM
3 votes:
Bigots hate being called bigots, because they have been mistakenly taught that freedom of sppech means they cannot suffer any consequences of their speech, by anyone.
2014-03-07 01:52:06 PM
3 votes:

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.
2014-03-07 01:35:32 PM
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Because religious people have rights to free exercise of their religion. They do not have rights to operate a business in a discriminatory manner.

To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

Yes, the word is "good". There is no requirement that we be tolerant of hate and bigotry. If you're a huge asshole, there's nothing that legally requires me to smile and nod and wish you well. That sort of requirement is more the province of... religion.
2014-03-07 01:05:26 PM
3 votes:

ManateeGag: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

I would play devil's advocate here, but I'm not in the mood for getting attacked today...


Feel free. If you were going to raise the old "but it's a privately owned business and you should have the rights to refuse service to anyone" thing, that hasn't been true for literally 50 years, thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
And part of the reason for the CRA was that the counter argument "but you can just take your business elsewhere" didn't apply when you had entire towns or even counties banding together to refuse service to a minority.
i.ytimg.com
2014-03-07 12:36:00 PM
3 votes:

what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.


Except you're not free to be a bigot in every way. That's what Douchehat was whining about in his column, and that, unbelievably, this article is defending: that you don't get to refuse service to gay people in your business, and that that's somehow unfair.

There's an ironic part to this, too:
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents... They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Douchehat and others want to be free to ostracize gay people from civilized life, specifically, by excluding them from public businesses, and yet are complaining about receiving similar treatment.
2014-03-07 10:25:32 AM
3 votes:
I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.
2014-03-07 05:55:46 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


They do not have the right to deny anyone because they are gay. Period.
2014-03-07 05:42:30 PM
2 votes:

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


Christians are lucky as hell that gays treat them with as much respect and consideration as they do, considering all the vitriolic hate that has been lavished on them from pulpits and pews across the entire country. I don't think Christians have half a leg to stand on regarding "respect" (especially since they're ostensibly all about loving their neighbors.)
2014-03-07 05:41:17 PM
2 votes:

rwhamann: timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?

I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.


How did the New Testament "abolish" those issues?  Shellfish and mixed fabrics, along with a host of other ridiculous rules, are clearly enumerated in Leviticus, the same place that people get the rules about man lying with a man.
2014-03-07 04:45:36 PM
2 votes:
There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.
2014-03-07 02:02:26 PM
2 votes:

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


My advice is to go ahead and start making friends with people who still oppose interracial marriage (well, the few that are still alive anyway), because a few decades from now, they'll be the only ones left who don't consider people like you to be bigots.
2014-03-07 01:57:58 PM
2 votes:
There really isn't a rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage except bigotry. That's why.
2014-03-07 01:03:25 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane.  You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?
2014-03-07 12:55:22 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?
2014-03-07 12:38:03 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.
2014-03-07 12:25:39 PM
2 votes:
FTFA: <the argument assumes> that "homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding," when in fact, plenty of gay marriage opponents merely reject it because they regard "marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose."

Then I suppose those same people oppose the elderly and people who can't or don't want to have kids getting married as well.
2014-03-07 11:30:44 AM
2 votes:
I wonder what people who were opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds would say to all this?

Something derpy, no doubt. Either way, those people were on the wrong side of history just as the people currently opposed to same sex marriage are. In a few decades they'll be viewed with the same sort of head-scratching disbelief as those who came before them.

They're entitled to their opinions, of course. Just as people choosing to remain aboard a sinking ship are entitled to their choice off the menu, blissfully ignoring the waters rising around them as their arguments and objections are swatted away by acceptance and common sense. Those of us who long ago swam for the shores of equality and reason don't wish them ill will, but we're not above pointing out the folly and utter wrongness in their choices.
2014-03-07 11:04:01 AM
2 votes:
The business community was very upset/concerned of the Arizona law permitting discrimination.   Everyone dodged a bullet.  I would suggest that now we be a good time for all businesses everywhere to purge themselves of their bigots before another law like this is proposed.  Just doesn't make good business sense to have bigots on the pay-rolll.
2014-03-07 10:19:09 AM
2 votes:
And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?
2014-03-07 10:14:31 AM
2 votes:
Here's the rub, one group believes "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs. The other group doesn't believe "A" and wants the force of law to let everyone believe whatever they want.


/"A" can be about abortion, gay marriage, hate speech, etc
//Shove your slippery slope arguments of, "What if 'A' were murder, or rape, etc?"
2014-03-07 08:53:00 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.

It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.

What is this? Bible trivia night?


No, it's "bigots trying to hide behind scripture night".
2014-03-07 08:38:06 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.

It's amusing how you have to tie yourself in logical knots to justify being a bigot.

What is this? Bible trivia night?

Eph 5:11. Romans 1:32


Still not seeing anything about not having to associate with such people for business purposes. Unless you're claiming to run heaven as your private business. This all has to do with wether these people are saved, not wether they should be treated as equal human beings in this life. Are you claiming to be the authority on who gets to be saved? Isn't that in itself blasphemy?

Also even if the bible did say not to serve gays, who gives a fark. The bible is not the law. You should be happy knowing you'll be safe in heaven after all this is over. If you had any real faith in that, the here and now wouldn't really be an issue. You'd happily go to jail knowing all would be right in the end. Or conversely, you'd happily associate with gay people and sinners freely in the chance that you'll lead them to salvation through kindness and showing them the way to the light or whatever. This really shouldn't bother you at all if you have any real convictions regarding your faith.
2014-03-07 08:10:33 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.


Okay, then! So, when do we start removing rights of addicts and adulterers, then?! This could be fun! Should we jail them, execute them or what do you think?! I mean, that book right there contains a couple of passages that tangentially reference those people, among a few thousand other passages I'm ignoring - but it's totally not based on my personal prejudices or anything. Goody, this is gonna be fun!
2014-03-07 07:58:02 PM
1 votes:
Idolaters and adulterers hide their sins.

Some Christians will not want to be around what they view as openly unrepentant sinners. To that end a lot don't want to be around binging addicts and serial adulterers either.
2014-03-07 07:51:23 PM
1 votes:

Fafai: That says they are bad and won't go to heaven. It doesn't say anything about judging them yourself or denying them service. Why do we not have the same controversy regarding idolators or adulterers?


That was the other part of my disillusionment - for some reason Gay is way worse than cheating on your taxes, oppressing the poor, smoking, cheating on your wife ...
2014-03-07 07:36:05 PM
1 votes:

menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.


Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
2014-03-07 06:58:57 PM
1 votes:

menschenfresser: Uchiha_Cycliste: menschenfresser: cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.

Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.

Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.

That's really funny because they really don't realize how they go against what there religion claims to stand for as one of its most basic tenets. Of course, they'll just turn it around and say that "you're the real bigot" for not allowing them to discriminate and therefore your intolerance of discrimination is itself discrimination.

Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there. They aren't even using anything actually religious to prop up their "belief" that certain groups of people don't deserve rights just because they are who they are. A part of me almost wishes that THEY would start being the ones who are singled out just for existing, an ...


You're preaching to the choir buddy.
But also, you didn't seriously expect a response from that ass did you? You've been here for 5 years, surely you've seen him post this kind of shiat all over and then dodge any followups asking for elaboration or justification. He's just a GOP spout-box and ignorant god botherer.
As House would say, if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. All they have is a feeling of what they think is right or wrong; a gut feeling, substantiated by nothing more than how they wish the world worked. They start with what they want or believe and then when asked to qualify they throw up the word "RELIGION" as an end all for arguments. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, this conversation ends now because "RELIGION"  It's become some magical panacea for defending any belief no matter what that belief is. Racism,- RELIGION... bigotry - RELIGION.  beating your kids because you are a horrible person - RELIGION!  there is no theological backing to their beliefs, there is just a bizarrely evolving cultural attitude that when you say RELIGION  counter-arguments are invalid and explanations are unnecessary.
2014-03-07 06:39:39 PM
1 votes:

Barfmaker: Uchiha_Cycliste:

And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

Gawdamm...that's a good point


Right?... so what the hell? How is he not God's left hand man? Jesus of course sitting on the right hand.
2014-03-07 06:34:50 PM
1 votes:
Uchiha_Cycliste:

And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

Gawdamm...that's a good point
2014-03-07 06:30:07 PM
1 votes:

I drunk what: Uchiha_Cycliste: Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.

If Jeeebus is ok width anti-gay marriage then how combs he kreayted lewsiphur so beyuteefull?

Judge not..

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x502]

sinnars!!1! hateful bigot racists!

*stares*

lelz


And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.
2014-03-07 06:03:34 PM
1 votes:

Facetious_Speciest: Uchiha_Cycliste

He has a religious right to be an asshole. but you don't have the right to be an asshole to him because he's an asshole.

My religion is quite clear on the concept of being an asshole to assholes. It's my right!


You sound like a solid Christian with a well founded understanding of the New Testament. Like I said above, Jesus was all about hatred and being an asshole to anyone who was different. It was his big thing.
2014-03-07 06:01:05 PM
1 votes:

menschenfresser: cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.

Please point out the exact religious basis - in the Bible - for opposing equal marriage rights and encouraging treating fellow human beings like subhumans for their sexuality.

Note: You can't just say "because muh preacher said so" or "Ah thank it's gross 'n' stuff."

Also, you left out the good troll language about "ramming it down our throats." Do try harder next time.


Every good Christian knows that Jesus was all about hating people who were different from you. He especially was about hating people who believed different things. All Jesus did was preach about the righteousness of hatred, standing up for your beliefs and making sure dissent wasn't tolerated. Jesus was all about exclusion and being an ass.
2014-03-07 05:55:59 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


Who's stopping you from moving to Saudi Arabia?
America: Love it or leave it, as republicans always say.
2014-03-07 05:54:28 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.



Wait, you want equal respect for hatred and discrimination against people for who they ARE, because of something you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

Yeah, don't hold your breath.  It's not hypocrisy to tell you to stop discriminating based on the way people are born.  Do you respect the muslim terrorists who want to kill you for being American?  Would you let them lock you up and torture you because it wouldn't be "fair" to resist their attack on who you are?
2014-03-07 05:42:14 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.

Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.


What agenda is that?
2014-03-07 05:38:34 PM
1 votes:

Gecko Gingrich: cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).

Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.


Respect is earned as it is given.  When it became about forcing  this baker and that barber, the agenda became clear and you support.
2014-03-07 05:37:27 PM
1 votes:

timujin: rwhamann: Ugh.  This one is extremely difficult for me. I'm a born again Christian. Used to be against gay marriage, but only because the bible said so. That was the only reason. I didn't hate gays. I didn't want them to die.  I thought the rules against homosexuality were frightfully unfair, and I knew they couldn't be backed up without the bible. I even as silly as it sounds prayed and begged God to change his mind on that issue.

Was I a bigot?  My religion told me it was a sin, even though I saw nothing wrong with it. I felt horrible espousing a rule I didn't think was just but just couldn't get away from.

So I gave up on that rule. And a lot of my faith died with it. But I still pray, and I still believe and hope for a day  that the loving God I believe in and the Iron/Bronze/whatever age precepts are revealed as solely cultural.

Those of you who say that all religious people are bigoted are wrong. There are surely many hiding their hate behind the Word, but I cannot believe that I was the only person that followed it but wished it would go away.

You could ignore all the other rules that aren't brought up in the average Sunday sermon, but are just as much the "word of god", but it was that one you had to pray about to get past?


I don't know what rules you're talking about, but in a word yes. I didn't really ignore rules - I recognized that I was human, I sin, and prayed for help to stop sinning. But that one stuck in my craw because I couldn't understand why it was a sin - it seems arbitrary capricious and even cruel, especially if someone is born gay.


/All the snide comments about shellfish and mixed fabrics in the thread sound like they score mega points, but the New Testament clearly abolished most if not all unclean issues.
2014-03-07 05:06:11 PM
1 votes:

Ed Grubermann: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

So, my wife and I should not have been allowed to get married 20 years ago because we chose to never have children? Fark you.


I'm assuming he's just a shiat-and-split troll since he has only made this one comment that has already been thoroughly destroyed both earlier in this thread and in prior threads and has not been back to attempt to defend it.
2014-03-07 05:01:51 PM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them el chip's alt?

2014-03-07 05:00:12 PM
1 votes:
People are still replying to SkinnyHead?  Really?  Do posters realize he is part of a cabal of RW posters that would deny the elephant in the room, even if it's sitting on their chest ready to crush them?
2014-03-07 04:55:10 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places).


Yes. Yes they do. The sad thing is, you have a problem with this and that makes you 100% wrong.
2014-03-07 04:49:07 PM
1 votes:
cchris_39

But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

This doesn't even make sense. No one wants to make you marry another guy. No one wants to force you to officiate a gay wedding. No one wants to force your church or temple or whatever to have homosexual marriages, as far as I know. So what religious rights are you talking about?
2014-03-07 04:48:05 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: There is no bigot like a gay narcissist bigot.

I suppose they believe that if they sue us enough times we'll accept and celebrate their sin as much as they do.

I use to not care.

Then it got to be in your face every damn day and it got annoying.

Now they want everybody to respect their rights (which still don't even exist in a lot of places). But anybody who wants their religious rights respected is a bigoted fool whose rights don't matter.

Arrogant hypocrisy at its finest.


ts2.mm.bing.net
2014-03-07 04:19:35 PM
1 votes:
What kind of pathetically spineless piece of shiat wants to simultaneously be against gay marriage and can't handle their little feelings getting hurt when they get called a bigot?

Want to be a bigot? Go right the fark ahead, nothing is stopping you, but for christ's sake actually own that shiat.
2014-03-07 04:08:46 PM
1 votes:
But if you want the shellfish, I'll sell em to you.
It's no skin off my back.
2014-03-07 03:57:53 PM
1 votes:
Bigots need some minority group that they can hate and condemn unabashedly and still be allowed to feel good about themselves.

Liberals have that already, bigots.

The poor bigots have nothing.
2014-03-07 03:57:35 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: give me doughnuts: Do you honestly enjoy posting in Fark? If so, why?

Fark gives us the opportunity to share and exchange differing views on controversial topics, that's why.


Does this mean you're starting to think of yourself and el chip as two separate people now?

/Yeah, I know, I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious, threadshiatting alt.  The obvious, threadshiatting alt is the victim, and I'm the REAL bigot. . .
2014-03-07 03:47:24 PM
1 votes:

HighOnCraic: ManateeGag: HighOnCraic: In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism. Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal. There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

isn't there a white supremacist church somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator

/See also:  the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa (before they had a "special revelation" that made them change their minds about supporting apartheid).


Slight tangent... That pisses me off to no end when religions, or other organizations (businesses do it a lot, too), have spontaneous changes of heart, but blame some other outside force to avoid having to admit they were wrong.  The Church above had a "revelation".  Uh huh.  Whatever.  Look, you picked wrong, you made the wrong choice.  Own up to it, ask for forgiveness, and move on.  I mean seriously, what ever happened to taking responsibility for yourself?  When the Catholic Church inevitably decides that gay marriage isn't wrong after all, I sincerely hope they just come out and say, "Ya know what guys?  We were arseholes!  We're sorry, we know what we did wrong, and we won't do it again."  I'd have tremendous respect for that.  Don't just hide behind some bullshiat revelation or whatever.
2014-03-07 03:42:22 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you? If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.

Because people choose their diet like they choose their sexual preferences.


Some people like sausage, others like tacos.  Who are we to judge?
2014-03-07 03:32:33 PM
1 votes:
If your relationship to your God or your wife is so fragile that it is threatened somehow by gay marriage, you have some pretty farking deep problems.
2014-03-07 03:28:34 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?


why would you consider a vegetarian caterer for your BBQ in the first place?
2014-03-07 03:25:54 PM
1 votes:

Jaymark108: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.


What if the photographer was asked to use his skills to portray the atrocities in a sympathetic light?  When wedding photographers, cake decorators and the like are asked to assist and participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest to force them to do so.  You wouldn't ask a vegetarian caterer to cater your BBQ would you?  If the caterer said no, I'm sorry, I don't believe people should eat animals, most decent people would have some respect and go elsewhere.  Only a spiteful person would try to force the issue.
2014-03-07 03:19:06 PM
1 votes:

palelizard: Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.

No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.


A priest?
2014-03-07 03:14:11 PM
1 votes:
Black people who spoke out against the Klan were the real bigots apparently.
2014-03-07 03:10:49 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


If your religion has that many restrictions that it affects your job, you need to find a new profession. Or stop believing the religious dogma and understand that someone else being gay isn't the reason you secretly want to suck a cock in the airport men's room.
2014-03-07 03:00:18 PM
1 votes:
I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.
2014-03-07 02:50:38 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Good question. Let's ask the religions that somehow made "being gay" more of a sin than:
-working on the Sabbath
-sleeping with a menstruating woman
-sleeping with a married woman (if you're not her husband, that is)
-blasphemy
-making fun of a bald Rabbi ("not having proper respect for religious authority" is the heading, IIRC)

all of which carry the Biblical death penalty.

I think the better question is: "why would a deeply religious person enter a profession likely to run afoul of religious demands?" An Orthodox Jew, for example, would have to answer god about working in a non-kosher butcher shop, or they could choose to find a new job.

// plenty of people used to do this, if you believe the "Jews used to have 6-day jobs" trope
// supposedly, I know grandchildren of people who went from 6-day to 6-day
2014-03-07 02:44:53 PM
1 votes:

ManateeGag: hold on, let me write this down. wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?


$5 bucks says you make it to the second use of the word 'possession', but only because when you got to the first use of the word 'body', she thought you were telling a joke.
2014-03-07 02:32:09 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


My religion says that gays can marry, bigots are trying to take my religious freedom.
2014-03-07 02:28:19 PM
1 votes:
Hey mark12a!  Here's your TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!  Enjoy it!  I hope your wife and kids enjoy being property.

Upon marriage, a woman's property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men's possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women's status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey" (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man's children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.

Biblical marriages were endogamous -- that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan -- unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.

Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to "own" sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.

A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.

Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).

Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to "House of the Unshoed" (Dt. 25:5-10).
2014-03-07 02:19:45 PM
1 votes:
In States where same sex marriage is allowed, you don't have to be gay to get same sex married, just like you don't have to be straight, or even really be romantically involved, to get opposite-sex married.

So even if two guys come and ask you to bake them a cake for their wedding, I don't know how you can definitively prove that they're gay.
2014-03-07 02:08:49 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


My wife and I cannot have children.  Are you telling me we shouldn't be married?  No?  Then what's the difference?

 the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

So just because you're creeped out, others should suffer.  Got it.
2014-03-07 02:05:37 PM
1 votes:

Pincy: what_now: They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life

Yes. That's exactly right.

You are free to be a bigot. Hate all you want. Join the Klan, fly the Confederate flag, tattoo a swastika to your forehead.

But other people will look down at you.

Came here to say this exact same thing.

Funny thing is, I actually prefer that people be more open about their bigotry.  It makes it a lot easier to avoid them.


Same with gay people. Some are rather obvious about it, and are therefore easy to avoid. Whereas others aren't noticeably gay and there is no way to immediately recognize that they are. Maybe they are single despite being reasonable looking and successful, maybe they dont like sports as much as regular guys do, maybe they don't ogle women or make off color comments, etc., so you can speculate that they are gay but you can't really tell.

I know this makes me sound bigoted to those here who are intolerant of those who aren't PC, but it is really aggravating when you meet a gay person who seems outwardly normal and doesn't make it apparent that he's gay.

You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.
2014-03-07 02:05:00 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


How will allowing gays to marry diminish the:
a. Child output of heterosexual unions?
b. Adopting/child-rearing abilities of gays?
c. Enforcement of marriage as a child-rearing legal obligation?

How does it affect your rights at all, in fact?
2014-03-07 02:03:50 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)


How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?
2014-03-07 02:02:59 PM
1 votes:

mark12A: traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens)


so, you believe women who are too old to have children or are unable to have children due to some medical condition should not be allowed to get married?  What about infertile men, are they banned from marriage?  Why is marriage required to make a baby?  If I've learned anything from Maury, it's that you don't need to be married to make a child.
2014-03-07 02:00:23 PM
1 votes:

amiable: SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.


top making sense. you're just going to get them all worked into a froth.
2014-03-07 01:58:46 PM
1 votes:
I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)
2014-03-07 01:55:16 PM
1 votes:
One of the most aggravating things when reading forums or comments railing against gay marriage is that they keep bringing up the argument of "well would you expect a bakery to have to bake something for the KKK?"

First Google result for "bakery discrimination KKK"
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery- fo r-discrimination/
2014-03-07 01:53:01 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


No
2014-03-07 01:47:39 PM
1 votes:
That is....poorly written.

And all that talk about "tolerance" he's spouting sure doesn't make him walk the walk, only talk the talk.

I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.
2014-03-07 01:41:05 PM
1 votes:
What keeps the proverbial wedding photographer from:

Changing his business to a members only club by charging like $1/year membership fee. Setting up a meet and greet with the couple that is requesting services, and having them sign a contract that says "the 2 people I met with are Mr.A and Mrs. B. They are getting married, and I agree to take pictures at their wedding"

Then couldn't they be as backward and bigoted as they want by being a private club instead of a public business?
2014-03-07 01:28:51 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?


Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.
2014-03-07 01:26:35 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


True; however, not in the way you are implying.
2014-03-07 01:10:31 PM
1 votes:
Marcus Aurelius:

If you're providing a professional service to the public, you have to understand that the public is pretty much batshiat insane. You have no idea how many loonies and nutjobs and kooks and losers are out there.  So if someone asks you to photograph a gig and you show up and they're all fabulous, well, that just comes with the territory.  If you feel that God will smite you and you'll go to hell for photographing gay people and then charging them for it, I'd say you need a new God.

Especially if photographing a tattooed man eating shellfish at the buffet it A-OK, you know what I mean?


So much this. I don't understand how the fark you ever decided to start your own business if you're such a delicate little flower that dealing with the public (many of which are mean, insane crazy people...or otherwise just different from you) makes you clutch your pearls.
2014-03-07 01:07:30 PM
1 votes:
A wild Skinnyhead appears!

He uses 'Troll'

It's super effective!
2014-03-07 12:57:15 PM
1 votes:

Rincewind53: Nadie_AZ: And yet, that appears to be insufficient for some gay marriage proponents. They don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.

Huh?

It's the best of crazy arguments

"If you want to change the legal status quo that's stopping you from getting equal rights, you're not respecting my sincerely held belief that you should continue to be oppressed, and that's not fair."


The odd thing about this belabored point of his (TFA author's, that is) is that he is pro-marriage-equality.  My counter-argument to what he's saying is that the "tradition" camp is letting their narrative be projected by people with really insensitive, dehumanizing points of view.  Yeah, gay marriage is a new thing on a cultural scale, but in the information age ideas fly fast.  Perhaps the philosophical war cries from the "equality" camp are responses to the type of crap that we hear from all these "Family" groups of really hateful f*ckers that seem to own the message.

brap: Actually its etymology is French, and refers to a religious hypocrite but thanks again for your undoubtedly thoroughly researched scholarly contribution.


Dude: it is Skinnyhead.  Seriously.
2014-03-07 12:48:03 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.


Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?
2014-03-07 12:42:19 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?


img1.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-03-07 12:20:48 PM
1 votes:

JohnnyBravo: I am sick of this issue. Who the eff cares? Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree. I couldn't care less.


Tell me more about the taste characteristics of those grapes.
2014-03-07 12:15:02 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.


i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.
2014-03-07 10:54:55 AM
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: It sounds like the author wants the law to force the public to respect his hatred of gays


I thought that's what you meant.
2014-03-07 10:23:47 AM
1 votes:

Gecko Gingrich: "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs


That's why people are being forced by the state to get gay married.  We knew this would happen.
 
Displayed 96 of 96 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report