Ted Cruz heckled by radical protesters in DC restaurant

Its quoted. You put radical leftists in quotes, implying there is an issue with the term. As these leftists were being radical, I question whether or not you accept such a thing exists. My credibility needs no salvage. You seem to have a hardon for me because I apparently ask you scary questions.

 

You have it quite wrong.

Most would probably want the baker to decide who to bake for with no state interference.

Same with the chicken place and Sanders ( odd coincidence there )

Just stop trying to force individuals from confirming to your views.

Judging them after the fact is fine. Oppose both businesses or neither business or one of them for the choices they make. But both and all others should have the right to decide who they engage in business with

 

Was Sanders asking them to create a unique artistic work to celebrate something to which they had a moral objection?

 

It's good to see politicians be verbally abused in public. That is a positive development.

 

I have a moral objection to having HuckDers in my presence, and I'd have a moral objection to serving her.

Thankfully, her class, political alignment, is not a protected class, and thus I am well within my rights to deny her service.

As for the cake; you don't get to infringe on the rights of others with religious belief.

Religious belief is vacuous and corrosive.

 

I can't help myself here. The reason he might put the phrase 'radical leftist' in quotes, could be the same reason I did. There is no definition for the term or respect for what it really ought to mean. People in PF use it so broadly and so inappropriately that there are no boundaries to it. Just about everyone who is progressive, socialist or just plain liberal can and has been called a 'radical leftist' Does a radical leftist promote radical ideas, or does he adopt or support radical tactics or both? How do we discern a 'radical' idea from one that is not radical?

That is only half the phrase. What constitutes a 'leftist' is just as mired in mud and slime at this forum. Words like 'radical' and 'leftist' are just bats for some of you to swing around at others. But you are swinging wildly and blindfolded most of the time, hoping to hit a piñata.

Partizan is already on record as condemning this practice regardless of the politics of the people involved, as have I. Your labeling them just divides what otherwise need not divide us. That can lead to skepticism about your agenda. Is it to condemn this practice, or to smear an ideology?

 

The SCOTUS ruled in his favor now try again since the Baker had no problem selling them one of his cakes from is display case.

Was Sanders asking them to create a unique artistic work to celebrate something to which they had a moral objection?

 

I don't need to try again. Like you lot insist the SCOTUS legislates from the bench; tit for tat, hey?

As for the last part, I don't care what HuckDers did. Political affiliation is not a protected class.

 

How so? I am not religious, but this claim is bogus. There are certainly evil people that identify as christian or catholic or Jewish or even Amish, but to claim that the religion itself is corrosive is just dumb when it was the very foundation of our way of life. As for vacuous, either you are using the word incorrectly or you know absolutely nothing about religion.

 

They interpreted the law and the Constitution in the matter. Your dodges noted.

 

Religion is the cause of all evil in this world.

Prove me wrong.

 

Oh, did they do the same with the gay marriage ruling? Or, how about the Obama care ruling?

Did they do the same in the case of Roe V. Wade?

 

It's not silly or specious. How about a modicum of honesty here?

 

Tactics.

A mob of people with leftist sensibilities screaming at a man and his wife, strangers, at a restaurant because of their politics is radical behavior. That you would seek to belittle and normalize such by condemning not their action but the term says more about you than I could, for sure.

 

Why is the Right so tolerant? When will they draw that line in the Sand and Tell the left.....enough is enough.

 

Senator Hatch Office
✔ @senorrinhatch




Chasing a Cuban-American Senator you disagree with out of a restaurant while chanting “fascists not welcome” under the banner of “smash racism” might have just taken us over our irony quota for 2018. https://twitter.com/smashracismdc/status/1044408830564683776?s=21 …

 

I don't know why I'd respond to such a trollish post, but:

Religion is responsible for your understanding of evil so in that sense you are right. It is also true that any religion based on creation claims responsibility for evil, as it claims responsibility for all things. However, the statement as a denunciation against religion is about as idiotic a statement as I've ever heard, as individuals must bear the burden of their own crimes. To push fault to the institution is evil in itself and eerily similar to the discriminations that your party "claims" to so vehemently oppose. Now, if you want to cite specific examples, we can debate them, but to lay a blanket statement out like you did serves neither side and just shows a deep naivety of the subject.

 

Religion usurps responsibility for individual actions by relegating forgiveness to a god. I absolutely push fault to the institution itself. So should you. It does it for you!

Naivety? Nonsense. It's not naive. It's meant to be incendiary. I reject all biblical views of the truth and dismiss it as the folklore of a time, my friend.

 

It does not usurp responsibility, or at least Christianity does not (I won't assume knowledge where I have none.) People are not given a free pass to the afterlife just because they believe, but rather that they are faithful which means the attempt to follow the example that is the foundation of our morality. We are still responsible and must answer for our own decisions. Now I'm sure many believe or at least hope that this isn't the case and yes, Christianity offers forgiveness but not as a free pass to do as you wish. You can't push people's misunderstanding onto the institution itself as this distinction is very much the premise of many of the few sermons that I've attended.

It may very well be the folklore of a time, I'm not disputing that and in fact think that it's likely. Having said that though, I wouldn't be so keen to claim that my view is in any way superior to another's or that their belief is responsible for every atrocity on record.

Religion (most modern examples) have done alot of good for our world, uniting people together and spreading a commonality to people that had no other connection along with the morality that we understand today. You would say that many wars were fought over religion and this is true, but honestly ask yourself how many have been thwarted because of it.

 

They're given a free pass to the afterlife if they do bad things and ask for forgiveness.

The good work religion has done does not exculpate it for the horrible, odious things it has done as a collective.

Tell me, how many wars were thwarted because of religion. I don't know of a single war that was thwarted thanks to religion.

Prove your boast.

 

How come the left aren't calling Cruz and his wife 'survivors' (word of the month, it seems) for surviving this intimidating, bullying and traumatic event? It's funny how the left seem to be the people who get to decide who is and isn't a victim.

 

ah, the unanswerable ... how many wars were or weren't thwarted because of religion. It's unanswerable. Is it possible that Billy Graham's crusades thwarted a war? Possible. But unknowable.

but religion, and let's stick to Christianity since that is the issue here, operates though humility .... not seeking power over other people. Kavenaugh does not represent that, nor does Georgetown Prep. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

 

The are not given a free pass, that is pure misconception.
Once again you are pressing individual action onto the institution, give me specific examples where this is not the case. Their are some in which I would agree to some extent, but I think you are ascribing more to it than can honestly be given.
I can't give you a list because they never happened. Common sense however, would dictate that people with more in common and a common set of morality are less likely to slaughter each other. More so the farther back you go historically, however if you look at modern day middle east it is evidently still the case.

 

I can give you plenty of examples, not the least of which is the institutionalized barbarism of circumcision, which is assault on an infant and an abhorrent practice.

Or how about the Roman Catholic church as an institution covering up child molestation? Or, it's unity with Hitler's Germany?

When it comes to religion not ending war and the comment you made about people having things in common; I agree, I disagree with multiculturalism because it forcefeeds people ideology that they are not accustom to.

However, I disagree with the assertion that religion has anything to do with it. In fact, religion is a primary focal point in many regional struggles including the ME.

 

Perhaps, that too is unknowable. It is natural for us to assume motivation based on our own experience and understanding. That is the true source of most evil as I understand it. It may also be the most compelling piece of christian belief, that there is someone who will judge based on motivation and intent rather than an outcome that our limited perspectives cannot foresee.