The GOP is in trouble.

[ksu_aviator]

Religious freedom in commerce ? Commerce is a public, economic, and voluntary interaction, not a religious one.

Exactly....VOLUNTARY...which means you can come and go as you please. If people can't come and go as they please, then it isn't voluntary. Plus, nothing...NOTHING...in the Constitution requires people to give up their rights to participate in commerce.

You seek to violate the constitution because of religion. The courts, decades of legal precedent, and the public completely disagree with you.

You can't violate the Constitution for NOT acting. Let me repeat that. You can not...can not...violate the Constitution for not acting. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires individuals to do anything...EVER.

Who said Christians should be forced to participate in weddings ?

You just did!

No religion is given a free pass on anything. That's what true religious freedom means. No democrats want preferential treatment for Muslims that i'm aware of.

I never said they did. You do a lot of making things up to try and win a point. If only someone had classified that kind of debate tactic and gave it a name.

Islam can be a very peaceful religion.

Can be or is? Because you just said a couple of posts back that it IS a peaceful religion.

Your inability to disconnect a belief from actions claimed to be taken in the name of a given belief is indicative of an inability to judge religious individuals as individuals. The religion does not encourage violence. Rather, it can be used to justify violence. Christians did it, too. The problem is the violence, not the major label ascribed to the alleged belief set.

I never ascribed violence to Islam. I ascribed Sharia law to Islam and pointed out that at least one of their laws is less than fair. You, again, did that thing where you changed my argument to make yours seem better. Oh gosh...what do they call that? Oh ya...strawman.

 

[MolonLabe]

Are you really conflating ritualistic animal sacrifice with preparing a meal? OMG this is hilarious.

No, I'm pointing out that sacrificing an animal for a religious gathering is the same weather it's just a turkey from the store or some jerkwad dancing around a fire before killing a goat. Do you think the animal makes any distinction between the two. They are killed either way.

 

[Absentglare]

did he force anyone into praying?.. or was it voluntary?

Even discussing the subject is preaching.

Again, would you support an adult with a position of authority over your child indoctrinating them with Islam ?

 

[MolonLabe]

Even discussing the subject is preaching.

Again, would you support an adult with a position of authority over your child indoctrinating them with Islam ?

If it's that easy to "indoctrinate" a child than someone hasn't been parenting worth a crap.

 

[Absentglare]

Is it okay to indoctrinate children to some things but not others?

How the **** did you get that from what i said ?

I don't care about my teachers beliefs. I do care when they indoctrinate children.

IOW: i do NOT want educators to indoctrinate children.

 

[Absentglare]

LOL Yes religion bad, teaching kids to hate white people because of "white privilege" good.

Who the **** said we should teach kids to hate white people ?

 

[MolonLabe]

Who the **** said we should teach kids to hate white people ?

LMAO Pay a visit to a good many universities across the country, that's who. Notre Dame actually offered a six week course on the subject.

 

[Absentglare]

Exactly....VOLUNTARY...which means you can come and go as you please. If people can't come and go as they please, then it isn't voluntary. Plus, nothing...NOTHING...in the Constitution requires people to give up their rights to participate in commerce.



You can't violate the Constitution for NOT acting. Let me repeat that. You can not...can not...violate the Constitution for not acting. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires individuals to do anything...EVER.



You just did!



I never said they did. You do a lot of making things up to try and win a point. If only someone had classified that kind of debate tactic and gave it a name.



Can be or is? Because you just said a couple of posts back that it IS a peaceful religion.




I never ascribed violence to Islam. I ascribed Sharia law to Islam and pointed out that at least one of their laws is less than fair. You, again, did that thing where you changed my argument to make yours seem better. Oh gosh...what do they call that? Oh ya...strawman.

You have no rights to religiously oppress your neighbors.

The constitution definitively bans "inaction," i.e. actively kicking black people out of your establishment, so defined.

Christians are not forced to participate in weddings. If baking a cake is an act of personal religious worship, don't bake cakes for a living. You're not allowed to be a bigot in serving a subset of the public. Basic law. For decades.

You're making up what i'm saying. Ironic for you to whine about it.

Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam can be a peaceful religion. A major label embodies a spectrum of beliefs. The major label does not imply violence, except for bigots.

You seem to discuss Sharia law in a way that violates the law of the land. You suggested that democrats would have to accept Sharia law, even the parts that violate the law of the land. That was your strawman. You, running from this claim with your tail between your legs, is unsurprising considering you're on the wrong side of the facts, the law, and the public consensus.

 

[Absentglare]

No, I'm pointing out that sacrificing an animal for a religious gathering is the same weather it's just a turkey from the store or some jerkwad dancing around a fire before killing a goat. Do you think the animal makes any distinction between the two. They are killed either way.

IOW you want there to be anarchy that is in no way tied to religion?

In your world, freedom of religion means we should be able to do whatever we want, any time, for any reason ?

Or is it possible that religious sacrifice is actually different than eating a dead animal ?

 

[Cephus]

Indoctrination schoctrination.

You wouldn't be saying that if it was a Muslim teacher forcing their religious views on students.

 

[Thrilla]

Even discussing the subject is preaching.

Again, would you support an adult with a position of authority over your child indoctrinating them with Islam ?

no, discussing is not preaching.. that's absurd.

I wouldn't appreciate that sort of indoctrination of my kids, no.... but then again, I don't see everything as indoctrination like you do.

if my boy had a Muslim coach who called for a voluntary after game prayer.. I wouldn't care one damned bit.

 

[Cephus]

LMAO Pay a visit to a good many universities across the country, that's who. Notre Dame actually offered a six week course on the subject.

All of that crap comes from the left too.

 

[MolonLabe]

IOW you want there to be anarchy that is in no way tied to religion?

In your world, freedom of religion means we should be able to do whatever we want, any time, for any reason ?

Or is it possible that religious sacrifice is actually different than eating a dead animal ?

I don't recall ever being in favor of anarchy. I can understand why religion seems like anarchy and is scary to a non-religious person. It's human nature to demonize that which they are afraid of and do not fully understand.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You have no rights to religiously oppress your neighbors.

I never said you did. Strawman

The constitution definitively bans "inaction," i.e. actively kicking black people out of your establishment, so defined.

That's not inaction, that's action. Strawman.

Christians are not forced to participate in weddings. If baking a cake is an act of personal religious worship, don't bake cakes for a living. You're not allowed to be a bigot in serving a subset of the public. Basic law. For decades.

Baking a cake, taking pictures, performing the ceremony are all parts of the service. You can't say that a person doesn't put their artistic expression into a cake or pictures. And when the priests in Wyoming that were told they had to perform a wedding, is that not a violation of their first amendment rights?

You're making up what i'm saying. Ironic for you to whine about it.

Haven't made up a thing.

Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam can be a peaceful religion. A major label embodies a spectrum of beliefs. The major label does not imply violence, except for bigots.

I never said it did and on multiple occasions I've repeated that I've never said it was a violent religion. Yet you continue to bring up that point. Strawman.

You seem to discuss Sharia law in a way that violates the law of the land. You suggested that democrats would have to accept Sharia law, even the parts that violate the law of the land. That was your strawman.

I never said that. Strawman.

You, running from this claim with your tail between your legs, is unsurprising considering you're on the wrong side of the facts, the law, and the public consensus.

I can't run from something that doesn't exist. I never made the claims you say I made. Strawman.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You wouldn't be saying that if it was a Muslim teacher forcing their religious views on students.

Actually, I'm just saying it to be silly. I littered a bunch of threads with that type of retort on a lark. I guess I got tired of the liberals just denouncing everything conservatives say with zero support.

 

[Clara007]

I'm still wondering why almost the whole map is red if the GOP is dying. Why is it that liberals can struggle to win all over the country and still claim to be doing ok?

I hate to break it to you but the 2016 Presidential election is not about red states or blue states. It's about the electoral college/votes and it just so happens that the electoral college is currently the GOP's worst enemy. All Hillary has to do is win 270 electoral votes and Dems already have 242 in their pocket. The GOP nominee will start with 179. But wait....there's more bad news. If Trump runs as an Independent he will split the GOP right down the middle. AND TRUMP will run as an Independent. You can count on it because the GOP big dogs will never give him the nomination.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Actually, I'm just saying it to be silly. I littered a bunch of threads with that type of retort on a lark. I guess I got tired of the liberals just denouncing everything conservatives say with zero support.

When conservatives say things that don't make sense, you can and should expect those statements to be denounced.

 

[Absentglare]

no, discussing is not preaching.. that's absurd.

I wouldn't appreciate that sort of indoctrination of my kids, no.... but then again, I don't see everything as indoctrination like you do.

if my boy had a Muslim coach who called for a voluntary after game prayer.. I wouldn't care one damned bit.

Discussing religion in an academic setting is not what we were talking about.

We were talking about a coach, uncritically telling the children the details of his personal method of worship.

 

[Absentglare]

I don't recall ever being in favor of anarchy. I can understand why religion seems like anarchy and is scary to a non-religious person. It's human nature to demonize that which they are afraid of and do not fully understand.

You seemed to suggest that there is no difference between killing an animal and religiously killing an animal, in the context of using religion to override the law.

In such an instance, you are suggesting that anyone should be able to break any law for any reason. That is why i consider it anarchy. You are free to articulate your idea in such a way so as to not imply anarchy.

 

[MolonLabe]

You seemed to suggest that there is no difference between killing an animal and religiously killing an animal, in the context of using religion to override the law.

In such an instance, you are suggesting that anyone should be able to break any law for any reason. That is why i consider it anarchy. You are free to articulate your idea in such a way so as to not imply anarchy.

 

[ksu_aviator]

When conservatives say things that don't make sense, you can and should expect those statements to be denounced.

Ah, well, maybe you should try to understand them before you denounce them. But thank you for admitting that you'd rather denounce than understand.

 

[MolonLabe]

When conservatives say things that don't make sense, you can and should expect those statements to be denounced.

Climate Change causes terrorism!!




Okay, get to denouncing.

 

[Absentglare]

I never said you did. Strawman



That's not inaction, that's action. Strawman.



Baking a cake, taking pictures, performing the ceremony are all parts of the service. You can't say that a person doesn't put their artistic expression into a cake or pictures. And when the priests in Wyoming that were told they had to perform a wedding, is that not a violation of their first amendment rights?



Haven't made up a thing.


I never said it did and on multiple occasions I've repeated that I've never said it was a violent religion. Yet you continue to bring up that point. Strawman.



I never said that. Strawman.



I can't run from something that doesn't exist. I never made the claims you say I made. Strawman.

You have been arguing in favor of allowing business to reject baking wedding cakes for homosexual couples due to religious freedom. Your case has been so horribly spoken that you failed to articulate it properly, but this is essentially what you've been arguing. That is action, you're right. I'm telling you that your claim of inaction is not relevant. That action is a circumstance that is accurately described as religiously oppressing your neighbors.

Nobody is forced to officiate a wedding. It seems that you are 100% ignorant of the circumstances surrounding public accommodations laws. Due to your dishonest debate style, i will let you research the topic on your own.

You made up my claims. You brought up Islamic violence. I am growing weary of your dishonesty. For your sake, here are your words :

And Democrats love to alienate anyone with an opinion other than their own. What happens to Democrats when Muslims demand Sharia inspired laws? Will Democrats allow laws that force raped women to be put to death?

But continue to dishonestly run from your own claims whining about strawmen.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm explaining your weird equivocation of eating dead animals and religious sacrifice. I don't blame you for feeling alienated by it.

 

[Absentglare]

Climate Change causes terrorism!!




Okay, get to denouncing.

Why should anyone care about your strawman ?