Donald Trump

I don't see contradiction at that. There is, let's say, 4% LGBT people in the population, so blocking some religious people from discriminating to benefit them is not bad. Again, your beliefs are not based on reason, just a book. One cannot legislate around a book.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't see contradiction at that. There is, let's say, 4% LGBT people in the population, so blocking some religious people from discriminating to benefit them is not bad. Again, your beliefs are not based on reason, just a book. One cannot legislate around a book.

Separation of church and state was to keep the state out of our religion, not the other way around.

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Pick one:
1. marriage is a religious sacrament, and as such should not be recognized by the government at all
2. marriage - as recognized by the government - is not a religious sacrament, but a secular civil union to which all should have equal rights

Personally, I lean towards #1. I don't think being married should be recognized by the government at all. While I was in the Army I felt tremendous pressure to get married (they literally pay you more, a lot more, if you do) and even in regular civilian life you get sweet tax breaks. I can understand tax breaks for having children, but the incentive to get married feels very creepy socially conservative to me.

The good news for you would be, if government took their hands off of marriage completely, then each congregation would be free to define it however they so choose. Of course, the next congregation over could define it however they choose, so I guess no matter what you're going to just have to learn to cope with grown men holding each other's hands.

I agree. Marriage is a religious covenant between a man, woman, and God. The government can slap a paper with the word "marriage" on it as much as they want. I can slap lipstick on a pig and call it Marilyn Monroe, it still isn't so.

I'm all for equal benefits/rights from the govt for any sort of partnership. But it pisses me off when the Left tries to persecute churches for not performing marriage ceremonies for gays or Christian bakers not making cakes for a gay wedding.

We're actually on the same page then. I'm not religious, I think it's borderline insane to be religious, but I must admit: the Judeo-Christian sacrament of marriage is a lot older than the US government. You fuckers invented it; it's yours, or at least it should be.

I look at the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle (how long ago was that?) and I think to myself
1. they should be able to refuse service to anyone, on sheer whim, because it's THEIR freaking restaurant
2. I'm not eating there, because they're bigots, and I can eat or not eat wherever I choose

I did go there recently anyway; my son got a coupon for a free kid's meal from his school somehow. I didn't eat, but I had all three sons in the car, so they got my money. Grumble grumble.

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

Separation of church and state was to keep the state out of our religion, not the other way around.

You cannot make a country for many beliefs when some override the rest.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

We're actually on the same page then. I'm not religious, I think it's borderline insane to be religious, but I must admit: the Judeo-Christian sacrament of marriage is a lot older than the US government. You fuckers invented it; it's yours, or at least it should be.

I look at the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle (how long ago was that?) and I think to myself
1. they should be able to refuse service to anyone, on sheer whim, because it's THEIR freaking restaurant
2. I'm not eating there, because they're bigots, and I can eat or not eat wherever I choose

I did go there recently anyway; my son got a coupon for a free kid's meal from his school somehow. I didn't eat, but I had all three sons in the car, so they got my money. Grumble grumble.

Agreed. And what you did at Chik-fil-A is an appropriate response to an establishment that holds views that aren't in accordance to yours. I don't blame you one bit, it's your opinion. People from both sides of issues do this all the time. I cancelled my PayPal account, don't buy Girl Scout cookies anymore, and I buy all my craft supplies from Hobby Lobby now.

As far as the marriage argument goes, the Left opportunistically and successfully politicized the institution of marriage, and they were rewarded. GOP missed an opportunity to nip this issue in the bud a while back, and they paid for it. It is what it is.

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't see contradiction at that. There is, let's say, 4% LGBT people in the population, so blocking some religious people from discriminating to benefit them is not bad. Again, your beliefs are not based on reason, just a book. One cannot legislate around a book.

Separation of church and state was to keep the state out of our religion, not the other way around.

it was to keep the church from running the state, like the place where they just fled religious persecution, the Anglican church of England.

The separation of church and state is explicitly and expressly designed around prevent the government from adopting an official religion and becoming a theocracy.

edit: I said 'you are very wrong', but you could torture and tease the meaning of preventing the state from adopting religion to mean 'keep the state out of your religion', but it does not and never will mean that you can persecute people based on your religious beliefs and the government has no say in that.

The whole idea of separation of church and state is that the government will not protect people persecuting other people on religious grounds, and will and has the duty to protect the persecuted and enable them to practice their religion.

And to be frank, for anyone to say Christianity is persecuted in America is bold faced outright lying to you and just as much looking for reasons to be offended as the most ridiculous SJW

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

Oh yeah, lots of leniency. Gay marriage goes against your conscience and beliefs? Too bad, bake that multicolored dick cake or else be put out of business you bigoted shitlord.

Think about what would happen if we let people discriminate based on their beliefs. For example, if someone decided that he/she is agaisnt interracial marriage, so no cake for them. Or no cake for jews.

It's forceful, but it's necessary in the long run.

Nah, the government doesn't get to decide that.

It's a power grab by the Left. Why would you want to be served by an establishment that doesn't want to serve you based on their firmly held religious beliefs? Go somewhere else. It isn't that hard.

Would I expect a Muslim bakery or Jewish bakery to make a cake for me that goes against their beliefs? No. I'd go somewhere else. Hell, maybe the other Muslim bakery down the street doesn't care and is glad to take my business. Capitalism is great!

while ostensibly I agree with what you are saying, I do have to point out a concept of tyranny of the majority. The whole idea of basic civil rights is that you don't have to agree with the majority of the people around you in order to have your rights recognized. A free society is not one governed by the majority opinion. A free society allows the minority opinion to be recognized and enjoy basic civilities. You don't have to like the fact that some guys like other guys, but you do have to respect that guy's basic civil rights. Is getting the caked made or not his civil right? I don't know but out right saying it isn't is not correct either, as it is a symptom and not the disease.

Making a cake for a gay guy even though you don't agree with them being gay is very different than being a kosher bakery and being forced by the government to make cakes with non-kosher ingredients. That would be an example of going against your religion, where as not doing something for somebody you don't agree with maybe not so much, making that cake for a gay wedding does not somehow make you gay married.

But the part where I whole heartedly agree with you is: who the hell wants a cake from somebody so set on not making a cake for them. they don't want to do it at all, nevermind wanting to do a good job.

Sorry to burst any self-centered bubbles but christianity does not get to claim monopoly on marriage because they did *not* invent it. Marriage (or some precursory form thereof) pretty much goes as far back as recorded history and was really more about making alliances for a practical benefit (like sharing of resources/land between families and tribes) than some "covenant between a man, woman, and God."

Ancient cultures around the globe had marital customs predating their introduction to the church, hell even the the pagan vikings of all people had their own ceremonies and laws regarding these alliances.

The only way the concept of marriage has even the slightest chance of being a construction of purely the abrahamic religions is if their missionaries have access to fucking time machines. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they don't.

In short, secular marriage arrangements makes perfect sense from a historical, and above all global, perspective.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

Wasn't trying to cherrypick words, you seemed to be confused so I underlined a few for you. What exactly are you rambling on about again?

But that's exactly what you did. For example, you conveniently left out the following line: "But holy fucking shit is it ever misleading to just say so." wich makes it abundantly clear beyond question that the meaning of the post is not what you make it out to be. For fucks sake man, it's literally the first sentence following the part you quoted.

"

Yes, saying whites have been persecuted by blacks is moronic. Then telling some story about how he was once called a cracker as an example is just funny.

Your assertion that his story is about proving how whites are legitimately persecuted on a level comparable to the worst of cases is a textbook example of a strawman.

Your assertion that any persecution, however silly, has to be on that level to technically be classified as persecution, is completely false as any dictionary out there will tell you.

"

Oh and I think you've got it backwards, Bill O' Riley tries to promote that same whites are being persecuted bullshit you're trying to sell.

But neither him nor me is making that point. You made that up yourself from a complete misunderstanding. In fact, I haven't attempted to make any point at all, other that of your argumentation being utterly fallacious.

I guess the part of me that enjoys learning about programming for a hobby simply could not let such a major logic error be. Like, I just came across this really annoying bug and I just had to try and sort it out.

the TL,DR:

"persecute"
verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.

Scrotie: makes a point about how cases of both #1 and #2 are technically acts of persecution in the literal sense, but that it's obviously silly beyond measure to seriously compare the two.

Wretch: questions Scrotie if he's seriously comparing the two

Me:

Spoiler

Woah that's an almost Charan like level of loving hearing yourself talk

I don't actually read out loud every word that I type. Sure, I think the words, but until recently I believed it to be the common practice.