wll, sloping is always a matter of choosing the coordinate system in a manner that makes "progress" look like the same old thing. The time-honored progressive strategy of "gradualism" has always been a pretty steep slope against Christianity.
Originally Posted by One Brow
You've got a choice. . . . . you can imagine you're God, or you can imagine somebody else is. Saying there is no God is the same thing as saying you. . . or 'we' are the only relevant "god". The so-called "secular" claim has always been a claim for the government's right to establish the values of society.
keep it up, bro. Pretty soom you'll be walking on the ceiling.
10-22-2014 11:20 AM
Does anyone know exactly how the ordinance is worded?
Originally Posted by PearlWatson
: I am not a Trump supporter. This message should not be construed in any way shape or form to be an endorsement or support for any policy or stance remotely connected to Donald Trump or his constituency or administration.
The path to heaven runs through miles of clouded hell.
Actually, no. I was not calling him out at all, I was getting clarification.
Originally Posted by babe
Now, the reason I was getting clarification, was to see if Highland had the same exact position as I do. Turns out he does. But if you had read my comment before that one you would have seen that.
So in short, yes you did read to much into it, in addition to not reading the full convo, and as a result you placed me on the wrong side. This has nothing to do with dishing it out or taking it.
I absolutely agree with HH in that if any personally owned business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason, they should be able to. I do not like the idea of judges and legislators controlling that.
The bolded part above is a position I have stated several times in several threads. So please, continue to tell me how I believe Judges and Legislators should be able to control that accoring to their own personal beliefs.
Guys, let's talk about the lesbian mayor of Austin, TX who tried to subpoena all homosexual sermons. That one is totally credible as well.
Last edited by franklin; 10-22-2014 at 11:50 AM.
Reason: fix the ****in filter kicky
Put some respeck in my paycheck
Originally Posted by franklin
Read today that she ordered the subpoenas to be narrowed in scope.
That idea makes me sick personally.
Originally Posted by Stoked
If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.
Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.
So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.
Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.
Originally Posted by Nate505
Better off is an interesting statement. Couldn't you say the community would be better off accepting others of different backgrounds and beliefs?
Originally Posted by HighlandHomie
Every HR department I've ever worked for seems to think this is the case.
No one wants civility here.
Maybe the guy was born there and doesn't want to leave, or doesn't have the financial means to do so.
Originally Posted by HighlandHomie
I'm extremely opposed to a country that can run people out of town through denying them goods/services just because the owners of the business are bigoted jagoffs. On most things I'm pretty libertarian, but in this instance the Feds and state have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of their citizens by intervening.
Regardless, the point is that gay marriages are being treated the same as straight marriages, not differently.
Originally Posted by fishonjazz
Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together
Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell