Religious freedom is code word for intolerance, says civil rights chairman.

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by ModCon, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No it isn’t....it means people of color as well as white people. Might be fewer black people but it’s still diverse
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Than they shouldn't pay any taxes.
    I think we should base who gets into universities on merit, not crotches.
     
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,435
    Likes Received:
    7,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, necroing a thread with a strawman! Impressive, even for someone of your stature.

    I have maintained that someone should be free to refuse service for any reason.

    What is imposing your religion is forcing states to allow discrimination against same sex couples in adoption. Stealing taxpayer funds under the guise of religious non-profit while discriminating against those very same taxpayers. Using local and federal governments to deny two adults the ability to sign a legal contract. Trying to push your religious cult into our schools and government. Trying to force religious pressure on local business and their hours or days of operation. Raping our children and then not even being investigated because you have corrupted the officials in charge of doing so.

    And lastly, claiming that you are exempt from laws and regulations that apply to all other people because your imaginary sky fairy says so.


    But you’re right, baking a cake has nothing to do with religious freedom.
    It’s everything else you fascists do that’s the problem.
     
  4. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    We might agree on something. There should be no tax exempt status for anyone or any organization. Not for churches, or political groups, or charities. That puts a huge block on govt "social engineering", i.e. people cannot use the govt to fund their personal ideology.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  5. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why shouldn’t they pay the same taxes we all pay? They shouldn’t get tax breaks for their business if they discriminate and don’t follow the laws.

    It was ok when crotches gave men admission to the best networking universities in the world . Now that it’s merit, note the number of women in medicine and law etc and those athletic scholarships
     
  6. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So someone should be allowed to refuse service to a black person....damn, I thought those days were over. Do you think a restaurant can refuse to serve a fat person?
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they are denied services from the government as you proposed they shouldn't pay for them.

    Well I actually said it should be based on merit, not crotches.

    That's the opposite of saying it was okay.

    If you want vengeance for all that time men were promoted above women, to show them what it's like, you're just as bad as a misogynist. Because you don't want equity you want supremacy.

    It's not merit. When a school has a diversity quota, people in "minority classes" are there so the school can brag about diversity. This is not good for women and minorities. It means they didn't really earn anything.
     
  8. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Restaurants refuse to serve Republicans and gun owners. Do you complain about that?

    And do you really think that if the govt left people alone that suddenly all businesses would refuse to serve black people? Those days are long, long gone. Mixed race marriages are common, white people elected a black man as President, some of the most popular and wealthiest people in America are black athletes.

    Join the modern world.
     
  9. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,435
    Likes Received:
    7,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don’t think anyone should be forced to serve another person, especially small independent companies with only one or two members. That is the very definition of involuntary servitude. I also don’t think business should have to accommodate religious beliefs in employment.

    Furthermore I would rather patronize business that actually want my money and will not give me substandard service because of the class I belong to. They should have to publicly display the groups they do not serve.

    I wish discrimination and hate was not something that any person had to deal with but highlighting these “places of business” and them shutting them down through boycott and public action is much more preferable than the alternative.
     
  10. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they think that, they think they are the heros of these minority pet groups. And their willingness to heel for treats inflates that ego.

    Think about all the times they say "the right side of history"
     
    Battle3 likes this.
  11. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes, I want supremacy.. and vengeance .lol. Wow are you threatened!

    So I am going to use your argument. Schools that dEnied women and minorities admission and only allowed men means that the men really didn’t earn anything because they didn’t have to compete with more than half the population. I remember in New York City having a much higher average than many of the boys who went to Stuyvesant high school which was a prestigious public high school. Did they earn it?
    You also don’t realize how you are insulting women and minorities implying that Everywoman and minority can get into colleges. Do you really believe that the women and minorities who are going to Harvard aren’t earning anything? They are still the top students and there is no affirmative action in the classrooms. They just get considered now and insecure men feel threatened because they have to share the pie
     
  12. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Restaurants should not refuse to serve republicans .....they don’t. Don’t make one exception, the rule .
    Since we have Trump as president yes I can suddenly see businesses refusing to serve black people. Those days were gone, but he brought them back. Mexicans s are rapists, Muslims are terrorists etc.....same dance, different steps
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Projecting an emotional state onto others is a weak way to try and cover lack of argument.

    Seems like you are starting to understand. If we give one group of people the edge qualified people that aren't in that group get passed up and incompetent members get advanced. Did you really think I'd argue against this?

    No. It seems like you keep trying to trap me. I'm an egalitarian. I don't think the sex of an individual should come into equation when we are talking about merit. The fact that it does is why I'm here posting.


    I didn't imply that but I can't help that you are insulted by things you inferred, and I'm not sorry in the least.

    They can get away with working less hard they aren't going to be kicked out, they are there to fill quotas. This won't change until diversity quotas stop existing.

    Some are there because of quotas.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  14. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    9,756
    Likes Received:
    13,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ha ha ha, you're going to hell. Look on the bright side at least you'll know everyone ;)
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not if they allow discrimination against same sex couples because they think it is to the benefit of the child for reasons other than religion. Not if they do so because it most closely duplicates what the child has lost for whatever reason, his biological mother and biological father.
     
  16. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,435
    Likes Received:
    7,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The discrimination is done only in the name of religion.
    Medical and psychological studies do not support the notion that a man and woman is necessarily superior and the adoption agencies “beliefs” on the matter are irrelivant.
     
  17. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In all reality, the decision on whether or not a child can be adopted by this couple or person needs to be based on the best interest of the child, not the state, not the religion, and not the personal beliefs of the people caring for the child.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
    cd8ed likes this.
  18. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You have too much kool aid. Kool Aid does not treat Trump Derangement Syndome.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  19. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is strong with this one
     
    Battle3 likes this.
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense. I am an Atheist and support the preference for orphans to be placed with a mother and father. As far as I know, Christianity doesn't say anything about adoption.
     
  21. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,435
    Likes Received:
    7,453
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are a bigot that dislikes homosexuals. A dishonest one at that. There is zero evidence that children being placed with a couple simply because their orientation is heterosexual is best for the child. My opinion is we shouldn’t place children with couples that are going to indoctrinate children into their religious cult of preference - but both of our opinions are completely irrelivant to this issue.
     
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you think the first criteria for adoption should be an opposite sex couple? That isn't how it has worked in the past. A single person could and still can adopt a child.

    It should be the best possible care for the child not hold out until the politically correct couple wants them.
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would be equally support kids being placed with a mother and father over two people of the same sex, EVEN if they were both heterosexual. Has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the two and is instead their sex.


    The dishonesty is you pretending my position has anything to do with sexual orientation. It is because of their sex.
     
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not with an abundance of qualified opposite sex couples ready to adopt. Because there is not, singles are allowed to adopt even though the PREFERENCE for opposite sex couples remained

    That would be my motive. The other poster just needs my argument to be based upon hate of gays in order for him to have a rebuttal.
     
  25. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,718
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the preference has always been for the most qualified.



    Well, there are agencies that help find the child for the parent. They should be focused on finding the best parent, not social engineering.
     

Share This Page