Red Cross volunteers heading to storm struck areas... any atheist organizations???

Yet you have not proven that the participants were atheists. Really just sounds like you are throwing things against the wall in hopes they might stick and that no one will question your statements.

Fail.

 

is a church not a non-profit charity? (well in most cases, some are still for-profit designations) you seem to think the gay couples going around suing churches who refuse to marry them, means its not an attack on religious charities? I would strongly disagree, that millionaire who filed several lawsuits against several churches to punish them into submission of his beliefs, would agree... as well as lawsuits against companies who want to practice their faith in their business... there have been some VERY notable lawsuits where the business won, Hobby Lobby, being the prime example where their religious rights were upheld... yet in other instances the business was damned and not allowed to deny service for their religious beliefs of not wanting to participate in what they viewed as a religious ceremony against their beliefs... should every business be forced to give up religion at their company doors, or only some companies? either its a yes or no, so which instances are right and wrong?

so since you agree schools should not force religion upon others, why are muslims allowed to wear a hijab in public schools, and pray in public schools, but the christian children are forbidden to wear crosses or pray, in fact they can't even bring up jesus in a discussion or homework now its gotten so bad... wouldn't you agree we should stop muslims from praying during schools and wearing religious hijabs? or is it different when one religion is allowed to but not the other... I'm also reminded of my own experience from a neighbor who's son was upset because he was told he could not wear his kippah, but then the school relented because they pointed out the muslim student was allowed to wear her hijab... but yet the other kids weren't allowed to wear crosses or tshirts with jesus on them... lots of double standards today...

we could go all day back and forth on this, there are very clear and obvious examples... just because people don't want to think its relevant to free speech and our rights slowly being eroded away, is sad...

 

If the gay couple is atheist why are they seeking to have a religious marriage ceremony in a church?

How does it dismantle their religion, they can still practice it at home and in their church, that being said do I believe the government has the power to force a business owner to violate basic religious tenants of a persons faith, nope.

 

you were talking about charities helping disaster victims, and now to public business not being allowed to discriminate or public schools not being allowed to push religion on children

sounds like your upset about same gender couples getting equal rights more then anything else

- - - Updated - - -

agree, all the government can do is say, if you can't sell that product without discriminating based on race or gender... don't sell it or you will be fined

the other alternative is to open up a private club... then they are allowed to discriminate

.

 

you can't sue a church for not marrying you

you can sue a business that is run by Christians for not renting a apartment to you because your black, gay or even a jew

 

Do you even know what a Hijab is????????

 

Bingo. The OP misunderstood the origin and meaning of the Red Cross symbol.

 

actually I think gay couples should be allowed to be married in every state... I think its wrong of states, including my own, to pass laws attempting to prevent their marriage or recognition of from other states when they move here for work or whatever reason... once again, you're attempting to inject stereotypes upon me without any basis for that, please stop that, its uncalled for and very dishonest to twist my words to mean something other than I have stated when attempting to provide examples you want...

I believe every american, has the right to pursue happiness... as long as their pursuit doesn't infringe upon my right, not to be involved in their pursuits... basically I think you and I should be able to freely and actively do things in life we find fulfilling, up and until the point where my fulfillment would come at a cost to you... thats when I believe my rights end, and yours begin... basically the whole, one voice should have the right to say "NO" to the others... a true republic... what this country was founded on... so quite often I am at a conflict with democrats, and quite often I am at a conflict with republicans, because they are pushing their parties agenda, not whats right for all... I can not defend one while I attack the other, unless I am willing to attack the other for the same actions... and this is a case of the same thing...

so my core beliefs prevent me from allowing gays to not have the right to marry, while they also prevent me from allowing gays to sue churches for not marrying them... this is why on gay marriage I've long said we should remove government from it entirely, then it won't be an issue since anyone can marry anyone else, and it will be up to those organizations or individuals for the actions taken place... and if two people wish to enter a legal arrangement where they have legal power over each other, as well as the rights and benefits of such, they can hires lawyers and file papers with the courts to obtain that legal arrangement, but marriage should not be a taxation of the state...

so once again, I've refuted claims you made against me, please stop attempting to reach in meaning, just take it for face value, I provided an example... stop reading into it...

 

so you are refusing to acknowledge the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits you can easily google... gay couple sues church... I mean are you in denial or me here?

 

yes, and according to wikipedia, its exactly what I thought it was... it has other names as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

so once again, its a religious item for muslims... why shouldn't jews be able to wear kippahs, or christians wear crosses, if muslims can wear hijabs?

did you entirely miss this point? feel free to re-read everything again...

 

If a gay couple is suing a church (which I haven't heard of, and they would lose - there is a difference from being a church and being a for-profit wedding chapel) then that gay couple is not an atheist gay couple. You seem to have a real disconnect when it comes to gay people who believe in God. It's pretty common.

Far more interracial couples sued for refusal of service than have gay couples.

You seemed to have jumped the shark in your own thread here.

 

Hijab is just a headscarf... and Christian kids do wear crosses.. The huge, honking Goth type are not acceptable.

 

So was the school board that passed these restrictions an atheist school board? You have no proof that atheists had anything to
do with these incidences.

 

How ironic coming from the OP who has dishonestly stereotyped atheists and made false claims that he cannot substantiate against them.



- - - Updated - - -

Why would a gay couple that are ATHEISTS sue a church for not marrying them?

Why would an atheist gay couple even want to be married in a church?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

for the believers out there


Why Did God Create Atheists?

http://skepticalavenger.tumblr.com/post/31221033607/why-did-god-create-atheists

 

hundreds of quick easy examples come up where crosses were booted but other religions were allowed to wear their propaganda... and no its not all "huge honking goth" stuff... its just a cross, or a rosary, or kids banned from bringing so much as a pocket bible to school... right for one, wrong for the other, thats discrimination right?

what so offensive about the cross necklace below, that should be banned from a university no less, adults and they still can't hack a little religion?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196794/CoE-school-pupil-banned-wearing-crucifix-Sikh-pupils-allowed-wear-bangles.html

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/11/11315088/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/student-ordered-to-remove-cross-necklace-at-sonoma-state-university/

look at this funny huffington post story, the school staff said the cross is a gang symbol and being worn by gang members, so it must be banned... thats how far they are willing to go to ban christians... its just pure insanity...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/elizabeth-carey-nebraska-_n_993958.html

how many links will this website let me put in a single post... there are THOUSANDS of these...

 

some idiots will sue for anything, doesn't mean they will ever win such a case, show me one such case out of the handful you think there are

we had birthers suing saying someone born in Hawaii was not a real American... doesn't mean they would ever stand a chance of winning such a ridiculous case

 

I have no issue with people wearing the cross, in fact I was a big fan of Madonna

wearing a cross is one thing, wanted to erect a 12 foot one on government land is another altogether

now in the case of the Christian teacher using a device to burn crosses in students arms, that I have issue with



.

 

More disingenuous pablum from the OP!

Link #1 refers to a school in Lancashire, England, not the USA!

Link #2 refers to what a school police officer did, not an atheist.

Link #3 was a mistake and the school apologized for the mistake.

Link #4 is in response to what a police officer told the school, not an atheist.

Needless to say the OP doesn't appear to have learned anything from his own thread. Maybe if he actually read the links first he might be able to find some morsel to fit his anti-atheist agenda.

 

there have been settlements out of court, so while not a win, its a payment to go away and stop bothering us...

the birthers never would have "won" because they had a logical fail from the start, his mother is an american citizen, it doesn't matter if he was born in china, russia, the south pole, or on the moon... by our laws he an american citizen by default... so they have no ability to "win" anything from the start... however it doesn't appear that way with the lawsuits against religious groups...

did you want to comment on the hobby lobby case... why is one business, able to uphold their religious rights, but another business is not in the case of bakers? why does only one company get to practice their religious beliefs? or do you think hobby lobby, and all the religious organizations that refuse to cover birth control costs are wrong? or are they right to uphold their religious rights? shouldn't the supreme court have forced hobby lobby and churches to pay for birth control since its the law? same logic... very very different results...

 

OP? What say thee? Shall thee go off on another tangent? You've already used up the gay thing and were found lacking. What next?

 

so do you think Christian businesses should be able to deny inter-racial couples service because of their mixed race?

I have no problem with religions discriminating as long as they do not do it as a business open to the public, create a private club for that nonsense

if ones religion wont allow them to sell wedding cakes without discriminating, don't sell them or open a private club

.

 

The members of the Supreme Court are either Christians or Jewish - not atheists.
Your posts are just all over the place and few have anything to do with atheist. Would you like to re-title
your thread?

 

and none of your extreme cases have anything to do with what I cited... once again you're attempting to twist and bastardize my words... please quit it...

I cited very clear examples of simple little crosses worn around the neck, nothing extreme like your claiming... there is nothing wrong with a student wearing a cross to school, especially when its most likely covered by the shirt to begin with... yet people object to even the slightest hint of christianity... while allowing other religions their garb... either its all right, or its all wrong, you can't have a mix of both... you can certainly have limitations on excessive amounts like you wanted to cite as some wacky dacky proof of extreme cases, but we're talking simple basic necklaces... not 10 foot monuments worn by a child to school...

once again, stop attempting to hijack my statement and inject extremism in them, thats dishonest and misleading... I'm trying to give you honest answers, I expect the same...

 

Hobby Lobby was an aberration by the Roberts court but not the first and probably not the last either. This is the same court that erroneously granted corporations "free speech" rights so that they can buy the outcome of elections. Even the decision in the Hobby Lobby case was worded to make it an exception and not the rule for all other corporations to follow. That was a clear admission that they were overstepping their bounds and "legislating from the bench".