|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 10:56:54 GMT -5
You are arguing, apparently with a straight face, that Christianity is essentially a bigoted religion and this should be protected by the Constitution. I'd shake my head, but I have met Christians just like you. Small wonder I hold your faith in such disdain. If this is truly Christianity, it is past time the religion joins its predecessors on the scrap heap. Fortunately, that appears to be happening in the First World. P.S. Fix your quote so that it does not look like I wrote your hate speech! Thank you.It came up fine on my computer, with the various quotes separated and annotated. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 10:59:19 GMT -5
Checked out your link at "outfrontonline.com". You understand that the man wanted the baker to make a cake with hate speech on it, right? That's not a religious cake. Well, it didn't used to be; it appears this is what Christianity is evolving into in this country. You opinions about atheism are like most of your opinions: not based on facts and poorly thought out. So, now Biblical quotations are "hate speech"? Well, for a confirmed serf, who sees the state as god, I guess anything that deviates from the approved thought would be "hate speech" to you, because it might make you start thinking. And my opinions are spot on. The fact that you can't see, or refuse to acknowledge the facts, is emblematic of atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 16:54:23 GMT -5
Wrong. What you see as bigotry is simply discernment, and exercise of free will. Nah. It's bigotry. Pure, distilled hate. You still avoid answering my question about blacks and the KKK, and with good reason. If you answered, it would affirm that you are bigoted only against Christians, and see them has having no rights, despite the fact that they built this nation. Sure they have rights. Just not the right to encode their bigotry into their business practices. The answer to your question is, "I don't know, and I won't until it happens." But my guess is that hate-speakers, which is the KKK and the Christian in your example above, are not a protected class. Christianity doesn't discriminate against people. It does discriminate against sin. You, as an atheist, can't separate the action from the person. Christians are commanded to do so. "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". Ha! This is utter claptrap. All the Christians in your example are discriminating against people. They're practicing hatred. Whatever they were commanded to to. You simply don't want any moral code, because that might inhibit you from doing what you want to do. Morality comes from God, whatever you wrongly believe. This flummery again. You can't even prove your god exists. And since I am and I know many moral non-believers, your assertion that a god is required for morality is flat out wrong. Without God, the entire world would be ISIS. And don't come back with the claptrap that "ISIS does believe in God, they are following His commandments". They don't, and they aren't. They, like most of the "religious" dictators are using religion as cover to commit whatever atrocities they want. Inasmuch as no one can prove their religion is right, they can only believe it, people can say anything they want is commanded by their religion. Indeed, ISIS beliefs are as valid as yours. You believe that your religion is correct because it's what you were taught to believe. Perhaps your parents did you the grave disservice of presenting religion as true while you were still trusting and lacked an illogic filter. And now you can't see it any other way because you've become hidebound in your thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 16:56:26 GMT -5
So, now Biblical quotations are "hate speech"? Well, for a confirmed serf, who sees the state as god, I guess anything that deviates from the approved thought would be "hate speech" to you, because it might make you start thinking. And my opinions are spot on. The fact that you can't see, or refuse to acknowledge the facts, is emblematic of atheists. No Bible I've ever read contains the quotes he asked for. But I haven't read the Westboro edition, which may be what you're quoting. Seriously, if that guy is a Christian? Then the Westboro folks are Christians, despite the fact that many Christians have distances themselves from those hatemongers.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 6, 2015 18:46:12 GMT -5
Wrong. What you see as bigotry is simply discernment, and exercise of free will. Nah. It's bigotry. Pure, distilled hate. You still avoid answering my question about blacks and the KKK, and with good reason. If you answered, it would affirm that you are bigoted only against Christians, and see them has having no rights, despite the fact that they built this nation. Sure they have rights. Just not the right to encode their bigotry into their business practices. The answer to your question is, "I don't know, and I won't until it happens." But my guess is that hate-speakers, which is the KKK and the Christian in your example above, are not a protected class. Christianity doesn't discriminate against people. It does discriminate against sin. You, as an atheist, can't separate the action from the person. Christians are commanded to do so. "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". Ha! This is utter claptrap. All the Christians in your example are discriminating against people. They're practicing hatred. Whatever they were commanded to to. You simply don't want any moral code, because that might inhibit you from doing what you want to do. Morality comes from God, whatever you wrongly believe. This flummery again. You can't even prove your god exists. And since I am and I know many moral non-believers, your assertion that a god is required for morality is flat out wrong. Without God, the entire world would be ISIS. And don't come back with the claptrap that "ISIS does believe in God, they are following His commandments". They don't, and they aren't. They, like most of the "religious" dictators are using religion as cover to commit whatever atrocities they want. Inasmuch as no one can prove their religion is right, they can only believe it, people can say anything they want is commanded by their religion. Indeed, ISIS beliefs are as valid as yours. You believe that your religion is correct because it's what you were taught to believe. Perhaps your parents did you the grave disservice of presenting religion as true while you were still trusting and lacked an illogic filter. And now you can't see it any other way because you've become hidebound in your thinking. How can this be bigotry? This is how billionaires are treated in your world.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 19:54:36 GMT -5
How can this be bigotry? This is how billionaires are treated in your world. So desperate to take a shot at me you got on board the redleg train? Wow. I get that you're still stinging from your rhetorical defeat, but... wow.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 6, 2015 20:21:27 GMT -5
How can this be bigotry? This is how billionaires are treated in your world. So desperate to take a shot at me you got on board the redleg train? Wow. I get that you're still stinging from your rhetorical defeat, but... wow. I donno EY. I don't think you've been very convincing on this notion of yours when it comes to pretty much anyone else in here. There have been a couple of other posters who weren't terribly impressed by your notion that 'innate differences' mean that some groups of people are considered special under the law. In all seriousness though, if it's perfectly ok to deny service to white, wealthy, influential, well-connected people because you have a philosophical difference of opinion with them, and don't want to be associated with that belief system; then it's perfectly ok for everyone else to get the same sort of First Class treatment that even Donald Trump enjoys. That's just telling everyone that they no longer have to sit in the back of the bus, and that they can have the seat right next to The Donald if they want it. The problem is, depending on one's perspective, you either want to force Trump to the back of the bus, or let gays sit in the driver's seat.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 7, 2015 8:33:10 GMT -5
redleg, your post has been removed. I asked you politely earlier not to misuse the quote system in a way that makes it look like your hatred is coming from my keyboard. Until you master the quote system stop quoting me or your posts will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 7, 2015 8:36:30 GMT -5
I donno EY. I don't think you've been very convincing on this notion of yours when it comes to pretty much anyone else in here. There have been a couple of other posters who weren't terribly impressed by your notion that 'innate differences' mean that some groups of people are considered special under the law. This board is heavily dominated by conservatives, and many of them (like you) approach the matter from a certain confirmation bias. I don't really care whether you've been convinced because I don't hold your reasoning skills in high regard. I will note that the body of law agrees with me. I am certain you believe this is because of some vast left-wing conspiracy that includes the media. What's really going on is that most people are left of you - even a lot of conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 8:46:36 GMT -5
So, now Biblical quotations are "hate speech"? Well, for a confirmed serf, who sees the state as god, I guess anything that deviates from the approved thought would be "hate speech" to you, because it might make you start thinking. And my opinions are spot on. The fact that you can't see, or refuse to acknowledge the facts, is emblematic of atheists. No Bible I've ever read contains the quotes he asked for. But I haven't read the Westboro edition, which may be what you're quoting. Seriously, if that guy is a Christian? Then the Westboro folks are Christians, despite the fact that many Christians have distances themselves from those hatemongers. What, "gay "marriage is wrong"? Try Leviticus. So, supporting perversion, and forcing people to either violate their religious beliefs or lose there business is fine, but the mere mention of Christian values is a criminal offense? By the way, in the Oregon case, the gays were also asking the bakery to help them violate the law. Gay "marriage" was illegal in Oregon when they asked for a "wedding" cake.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 8:48:32 GMT -5
redleg, your post has been removed. I asked you politely earlier not to misuse the quote system in a way that makes it look like your hatred is coming from my keyboard. Until you master the quote system stop quoting me or your posts will be deleted. As I said before, it comes up fine on my computer, with the quotes separated from my responses. I don't know how it's coming up on yours. It's the board's quote system I'm using, so I don't know how it's messing things up.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 8:51:02 GMT -5
I donno EY. I don't think you've been very convincing on this notion of yours when it comes to pretty much anyone else in here. There have been a couple of other posters who weren't terribly impressed by your notion that 'innate differences' mean that some groups of people are considered special under the law. This board is heavily dominated by conservatives, and many of them (like you) approach the matter from a certain confirmation bias. I don't really care whether you've been convinced because I don't hold your reasoning skills in high regard. I will note that the body of law agrees with me. I am certain you believe this is because of some vast left-wing conspiracy that includes the media. What's really going on is that most people are left of you - even a lot of conservatives. No, it doesn't. The body of judges agrees with you, but the 'body of law', just like in the Puppettax case that SCOTUS just royally screwed up, says something completely different. The law says no discrimination. A complete insanity any way you look at it. Discrimination happens every day, in every decision made by every person on earth. What the law makers were really saying is "you can't discriminate against those we want to vote for us, but we can discriminate against you any time we want".
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 7, 2015 10:26:37 GMT -5
I donno EY. I don't think you've been very convincing on this notion of yours when it comes to pretty much anyone else in here. There have been a couple of other posters who weren't terribly impressed by your notion that 'innate differences' mean that some groups of people are considered special under the law. This board is heavily dominated by conservatives, and many of them (like you) approach the matter from a certain confirmation bias. I don't really care whether you've been convinced because I don't hold your reasoning skills in high regard. Well, that's mutual, EY. Because the courts have enshrined these double standards does not make them correct, legally or factually. The basic text of the civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment were written to be blind to your 'innate qualities' that no longer exist. And the simple truth is they couldn't be any other way and still function. As noted earlier, race and sex are no longer innate qualities, they are choices. This simple reality is beginning to erode the very foundation of the conventional line of reasoning you and the courts have put forth. Civil rights laws were written to promote the idea of equality, not insure that minorities were treated better than billionaires. Here's the set of circumstances that your line of reasoning has led us to: Catlyn Jenner is conservative (her words, not a hypothetical). If she were to run for President on the Republican ticket as the first Trans-woman president, Neil Young might be dis-inclined to allow her to play his music at her campaign launch event. Yet, clearly, she is in a protected class (or ought to be) as transgender people are frequently victims of discrimination. Is Young allowed to refuse her service for the same reason he's allowed to refuse Trump service, or would he violate her civil rights by doing so? And if not, would have he been allowed to do so 10 years ago, when he was still Bruce? And if so, we've arrived in a place where undergoing plastic surgery gets you civil rights you never had before. That is INSANE on both legal and logical grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 7, 2015 11:18:55 GMT -5
And here's the other end of the massive worm hole in EY's logic:
Determining what standard of service people should expect from a 'public accommodation' isn't exactly obvious. A judge who wanted to be liberal might reasonably look at the standard of service Donald Trump receives. After all, he's a straight, white, billionaire with a lot of influence and a history of being litigious. Said judge would certainly believe that it is unlikely that he receives sub-standard service anywhere. Indeed, he could probably go into McDonalds, order a Starbucks coffee to go with his Egg McMuffin, and not be surprised if someone went next door to Starbucks to get it for him.
Yet on EY's terms, The Donald can be refused the services of a musician based merely on a difference of opinion. That level of service is now considered to be consistent with First Class service as it has been re-defined by EY. With this in mind, why should anyone expect the services of a musician, or bakery, or photographer, or florist when there is a difference of opinion between the service provider and the customer? After all these are all people who simply don't want their services associated with the event they're being requested to participate in. It's not like anyone is being categorically denied service either - Trump can still play Neil Young's music in private, and that gay couple can still buy the Christian bakery's donuts. It's just a very specific set of circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 7, 2015 13:06:05 GMT -5
redleg, your post has been removed. I asked you politely earlier not to misuse the quote system in a way that makes it look like your hatred is coming from my keyboard. Until you master the quote system stop quoting me or your posts will be deleted. As I said before, it comes up fine on my computer, with the quotes separated from my responses. I don't know how it's coming up on yours. It's the board's quote system I'm using, so I don't know how it's messing things up. FWIW - I've noticed that the ProBoard's quoting capabilities are not up to snuff, too.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jul 7, 2015 15:54:46 GMT -5
I have to admit to a certain nervousness about the cake guy losing and being punished rather severly.
Me I welcome and treat all customers the best I can. I have a number of same sex couples among my
clientle, all greeted and served like everyone else.
I would hate for one of them to get pissed at me and go after me on this basis.
How in the heck could one defend himself from this sort of attack? Egged on by some blood sucking lawyer?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 7, 2015 16:19:16 GMT -5
I have to admit to a certain nervousness about the cake guy losing and being punished rather severly. Me I welcome and treat all customers the best I can. I have a number of same sex couples among my clientle, all greeted and served like everyone else. I would hate for one of them to get pissed at me and go after me on this basis. How in the heck could one defend himself from this sort of attack? Egged on by some blood sucking lawyer? There was recently a case where the gay couple decided to sue the bakery after the cake was made and provided for the wedding because the couple discovered the bakery was opposed to same sex marriage after the fact. So you really can't hide.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jul 7, 2015 16:53:11 GMT -5
I have to admit to a certain nervousness about the cake guy losing and being punished rather severly. Me I welcome and treat all customers the best I can. I have a number of same sex couples among my clientle, all greeted and served like everyone else. I would hate for one of them to get pissed at me and go after me on this basis. How in the heck could one defend himself from this sort of attack? Egged on by some blood sucking lawyer? There was recently a case where the gay couple decided to sue the bakery after the cake was made and provided for the wedding because the couple discovered the bakery was opposed to same sex marriage after the fact. So you really can't hide. I want a link.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 7, 2015 17:17:53 GMT -5
There was recently a case where the gay couple decided to sue the bakery after the cake was made and provided for the wedding because the couple discovered the bakery was opposed to same sex marriage after the fact. So you really can't hide. I want a link. It's going to be a bitch to find that article again. I'll do my best. The thing is, it's not really any different than Brendan Eich losing his job at Mozilla. Mozilla never denied service to gays. But they boycotted just the same when they discovered that Eich supported proposition 8. As you can imagine, finding the story about the bakery that was sued after making the cake is impossible to weed out of the google search from all the stories about bakeries that wouldn't make the cake.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 19:21:43 GMT -5
As I said before, it comes up fine on my computer, with the quotes separated from my responses. I don't know how it's coming up on yours. It's the board's quote system I'm using, so I don't know how it's messing things up. FWIW - I've noticed that the ProBoard's quoting capabilities are not up to snuff, too. Since I can't see what he is seeing, I don't know what's going on, or how to fix it. I was using the 'quote' button, and on my computer everything was separated and labeled by who said what.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 19:33:12 GMT -5
Wrong. What you see as bigotry is simply discernment, and exercise of free will. Nah. It's bigotry. Pure, distilled hate. You still avoid answering my question about blacks and the KKK, and with good reason. If you answered, it would affirm that you are bigoted only against Christians, and see them has having no rights, despite the fact that they built this nation. Sure they have rights. Just not the right to encode their bigotry into their business practices. The answer to your question is, "I don't know, and I won't until it happens." But my guess is that hate-speakers, which is the KKK and the Christian in your example above, are not a protected class. Christianity doesn't discriminate against people. It does discriminate against sin. You, as an atheist, can't separate the action from the person. Christians are commanded to do so. "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". Ha! This is utter claptrap. All the Christians in your example are discriminating against people. They're practicing hatred. Whatever they were commanded to to. You simply don't want any moral code, because that might inhibit you from doing what you want to do. Morality comes from God, whatever you wrongly believe. This flummery again. You can't even prove your god exists. And since I am and I know many moral non-believers, your assertion that a god is required for morality is flat out wrong. Without God, the entire world would be ISIS. And don't come back with the claptrap that "ISIS does believe in God, they are following His commandments". They don't, and they aren't. They, like most of the "religious" dictators are using religion as cover to commit whatever atrocities they want. Inasmuch as no one can prove their religion is right, they can only believe it, people can say anything they want is commanded by their religion. Indeed, ISIS beliefs are as valid as yours. You believe that your religion is correct because it's what you were taught to believe. Perhaps your parents did you the grave disservice of presenting religion as true while you were still trusting and lacked an illogic filter. And now you can't see it any other way because you've become hidebound in your thinking. 1. By your definition, any voluntary decision, especially one deciding on association, is 'bigotry'. Therefore, blacks that don't attend, and celebrate, KKK rallies are bigots. Jews that don't attend, and cheer for, NeoNazi parades are 'bigots'. Gays that don't attend Catholic Mass, and reverentially participate in all the pageantry, are 'bigots'. 2. No, they have no rights. Their right of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech have been subsumed to the "right" of perverts not to have their feelings hurt. And given the fact that they will have their feelings hurt, even if they have to make up the situation, the only reason gay couples would frequent a bakery run by Christians is to start a lawsuit. That's extortion, as well as bigotry. By your "logic", blacks can't refuse service to KKK members, and Jews can't refuse NeoNazis. Either the law applies equally to all, and there are no "protected" groups, or it's not a law, but tyranny. 3. They are doing exactly what gays are doing to them, except that the gays then use the force of tyranny to destroy anyone that even vaguely disagrees with their perverted lifestyle. 4. They are "moral" only because Judeo-Christian religion defines what is moral for them, in this country. Morality is defined, again, by the prevailing religion of a particular country, or area. They may claim 'atheism', but they behave as they do because religion has taught them right from wrong. 5. The "illogic" filter is what was stripped from you. You seem to think that government can define "rights". What you have been unable to understand is, when government builds a "protected class", and imbues them with special rights, they trample the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. Evidently, the brainwashing from the Left has found fertile soil between your ears, and you have surrendered the ability to actually think.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 7, 2015 19:45:16 GMT -5
1. By your definition, any voluntary decision, especially one deciding on association, is 'bigotry'. Therefore, blacks that don't attend, and celebrate, KKK rallies are bigots. Jews that don't attend, and cheer for, NeoNazi parades are 'bigots'. Gays that don't attend Catholic Mass, and reverentially participate in all the pageantry, are 'bigots'. This makes even less sense than you usually do. 2. No, they have no rights. Their right of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech have been subsumed to the "right" of perverts not to have their feelings hurt. And given the fact that they will have their feelings hurt, even if they have to make up the situation, the only reason gay couples would frequent a bakery run by Christians is to start a lawsuit. Sure they have rights. Just not the right to regard a business, a public accommodation, as a church - which it is not. As has been explained to you. Perhaps if these Christians really feel this strongly about it, they should close their businesses. Maybe their god will miracle them some income! They are "moral" only because Judeo-Christian religion defines what is moral for them, in this country. Morality is defined, again, by the prevailing religion of a particular country, or area. They may claim 'atheism', but they behave as they do because religion has taught them right from wrong. Religion was invented by man as a teaching tool to impart morality. It is not the source of morality, regardless of what mystical hand-waving you try to do. I've read enough of the Bible to know that it is not a book of hate. I'm not sure where you're finding messages like "God Hates Fags" in there. Sure glad I don't know what it's like to hate the way you do.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 7, 2015 19:59:12 GMT -5
1. By your definition, any voluntary decision, especially one deciding on association, is 'bigotry'. Therefore, blacks that don't attend, and celebrate, KKK rallies are bigots. Jews that don't attend, and cheer for, NeoNazi parades are 'bigots'. Gays that don't attend Catholic Mass, and reverentially participate in all the pageantry, are 'bigots'. This makes even less sense than you usually do. 2. No, they have no rights. Their right of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech have been subsumed to the "right" of perverts not to have their feelings hurt. And given the fact that they will have their feelings hurt, even if they have to make up the situation, the only reason gay couples would frequent a bakery run by Christians is to start a lawsuit. Sure they have rights. Just not the right to regard a business, a public accommodation, as a church - which it is not. As has been explained to you. Perhaps if these Christians really feel this strongly about it, they should close their businesses. Maybe their god will miracle them some income! They are "moral" only because Judeo-Christian religion defines what is moral for them, in this country. Morality is defined, again, by the prevailing religion of a particular country, or area. They may claim 'atheism', but they behave as they do because religion has taught them right from wrong. Religion was invented by man as a teaching tool to impart morality. It is not the source of morality, regardless of what mystical hand-waving you try to do. I've read enough of the Bible to know that it is not a book of hate. I'm not sure where you're finding messages like "God Hates Fags" in there. Sure glad I don't know what it's like to hate the way you do. 1. It was YOUR "logic" I was responding to. By that "logic", anyone making any decision, especially regarding association, is bigotry, especially if one owns a business. By your "logic", one surrenders all their rights if they dare to open a business. Unless, of course, they are Democrat, in which case, no law applies to them. 2. Again, by your "logic", one can only be black, gay, Indian, or crippled, in their own homes. If they own a business, they can no longer be black, gay, ect, because that might offend someone and create a lawsuit. After all, a business is not an NAACP meeting, a pow wow, or ADA meeting, so they have no right to their personal identities. 3. Where did you see someone wanting that on a cake? What I read was "Homosexuality is wrong", and 2 males holding hands with the red circle/slash. Neither of those is 'hateful', unless you have a predisposition to see any disagreement as 'hate'. Which is exactly how the Left manages to "win" so often. They just shut up any opposition. If they can't do it with insults, they file lawsuits. And judges shut people up for them, as they did in Oregon. 4. Prove it. Show me the civilization that had no religion. Show me the atheist that can disprove the Resurrection. Morality is formed by religion. Since you have been surrounded by religious dictates of morality all your life, that's what defines morality for you. Therefore, even though you claim to be atheist, you conform to the rules and tenets of Judeo-Christianity. There is no way of knowing what you would be if there were a truly non religious community to grow up in, but Soviet Russia comes to mind, with the 80 million dead for not conforming to the religion of government.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 7, 2015 21:59:11 GMT -5
1. It was YOUR "logic" I was responding to. By that "logic", anyone making any decision, especially regarding association, is bigotry, especially if one owns a business. By your "logic", one surrenders all their rights if they dare to open a business. Unless, of course, they are Democrat, in which case, no law applies to them. 2. Again, by your "logic", one can only be black, gay, Indian, or crippled, in their own homes. If they own a business, they can no longer be black, gay, ect, because that might offend someone and create a lawsuit. After all, a business is not an NAACP meeting, a pow wow, or ADA meeting, so they have no right to their personal identities. Actually, that is a large body of law on public accommodations, about which you are evidently ignorant. 3. Where did you see someone wanting that on a cake? What I read was "Homosexuality is wrong", and 2 males holding hands with the red circle/slash. Neither of those is 'hateful', unless you have a predisposition to see any disagreement as 'hate'. Which is exactly how the Left manages to "win" so often. They just shut up any opposition. If they can't do it with insults, they file lawsuits. And judges shut people up for them, as they did in Oregon. I can't open the link now; the site you linked returns a database error. I'll have to verify it tomorrow. 4. Prove it. Show me the civilization that had no religion. Show me the atheist that can disprove the Resurrection. Morality is formed by religion. Since you have been surrounded by religious dictates of morality all your life, that's what defines morality for you. Therefore, even though you claim to be atheist, you conform to the rules and tenets of Judeo-Christianity. There is no way of knowing what you would be if there were a truly non religious community to grow up in, but Soviet Russia comes to mind, with the 80 million dead for not conforming to the religion of government. That's not how logic works. If YOU expect people to believe your god exists, then YOU must provide the proof. No available scientific evidence supports the existence of such a being. All you have is apocryphal. The murders of Russians had less to do with atheism than with how totalitarian governments operate. They were mostly a product of the fact that communism is essentially antithetical to human nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 22:50:23 GMT -5
It's going to be a bitch to find that article again. I'll do my best. The thing is, it's not really any different than Brendan Eich losing his job at Mozilla. Mozilla never denied service to gays. But they boycotted just the same when they discovered that Eich supported proposition 8. As you can imagine, finding the story about the bakery that was sued after making the cake is impossible to weed out of the google search from all the stories about bakeries that wouldn't make the cake. I think this is the one you're referring to. An Oregon bakery refused a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and were found guilty and fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
I still don't see grounds for discrimination in this case since the couple would not have made the cake for anyone, not just a lesbian couple. They didn't refuse them because they were lesbians; in fact, these two women had patronized the bakery on several different occasions. They were refused a certain product which represented an act that this couple did not agree with. Sounds to me like a First Amendment issue. It's a pretty sad day when people are told when and how they can check their consciences at the door.
|
|