OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sobchack. Show Sobchack's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Previously divorced couples are not necessarily a wrong thing according to Christian Scripture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    [/QUOTE]


    Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The direct words from Christ Himself. Game. Set. Match.

    [/QUOTE]

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    You'll never win this one.  Ever.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've won it 1000 times. Your childish understanding of Scripture will never prevail.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are over 33,000 Christian denominations in the world, if we are referring to the New Testament as "Scripture."  

    I assume you belong to 1 of these demoninations; therefore that leaves at MINIMUM 29,9999 groups are getting the Scripture "wrong."

    But, sure, I'll take "childish understanding"

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to palookaski's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to KyleCleric1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to palookaski's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant.  Religion is clearly a choice and we don't allow discrimination against people because of their religion.  

    [/QUOTE]


    True, but in both cases above; What to you suppose what happens to a Christian or Jew living in a Muslim Country, ordering a cake with a Cross/Star of David? Forget about the Idea that both could be Homosexual, - that only compounds the situation.

    Do you think there would be a SB 1062 Bill put up by any couragious Muslim Cleric or Politician?  Or do you think that if so the Christian/Jew would be arrested without trial, and the cleric put to shame? Or do you think that the Christian/Jew should have known better than to upset a Muslim Baker? Do they get their cake and eat it too?

    How about if that happened in Canada? A muslim baker, because of his belief refuses?

    [/QUOTE]

    First, I'm not sure that any of this would be the case. Secondly, I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of in the US.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, awright, IC! Now forget what I said about a Muslim Country but just think about that happening where you live? What then? Would you then attack Muslims if the Muslim baker refused service, like many here attack Christians?  I assume that you know how the Quran describes homosexuals as evil? These people here will not attack the Quran, they know better but they also know that Christ is easy pickens and always has been. Very brave they are! Their heads would be missing in a Muslim Country for defiling the Quran.

    After all, people are talking about a map that was posted? Then changed to suit themselves.

    Other than that, you have a good night and GOD bless you, HE loves you!

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I would leave it as it would be wrong to use religion as a sword to discriminate against others. Technically under this bill, I guess a muslim taxi driver could deny service to someone who is driven to or from a bar.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Previously divorced couples are not necessarily a wrong thing according to Christian Scripture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    [/QUOTE]


    Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The direct words from Christ Himself. Game. Set. Match.

    [/QUOTE]

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    You'll never win this one.  Ever.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've won it 1000 times. Your childish understanding of Scripture will never prevail.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are over 33,000 Christian denominations in the world, if we are referring to the New Testament as "Scripture."  

    I assume you belong to 1 of these demoninations; therefore that leaves at MINIMUM 29,9999 groups are getting the Scripture "wrong."

    But, sure, I'll take "childish understanding"

    [/QUOTE]


    How childish. Much like the clowns around here with an agenda (check your mirror for an example), some Christians aren't the lovers of truth they are supposed to be.

    What's your beef about 1 Timothy? This should be fun.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Previously divorced couples are not necessarily a wrong thing according to Christian Scripture.

     



    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    [/QUOTE]


    Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The direct words from Christ Himself. Game. Set. Match.

    [/QUOTE]

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    You'll never win this one.  Ever.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've won it 1000 times. Your childish understanding of Scripture will never prevail.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are over 33,000 Christian denominations in the world, if we are referring to the New Testament as "Scripture."  

    I assume you belong to 1 of these demoninations; therefore that leaves at MINIMUM 29,9999 groups are getting the Scripture "wrong."

    But, sure, I'll take "childish understanding"

    [/QUOTE]


    How childish. Much like the clowns around here with an agenda (check your mirror for an example), some Christians aren't the lovers of truth they are supposed to be.

    What's your beef about 1 Timothy? This should be fun.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How true....might I suggest you check your own mirror?! Or are you afraid to look into the eyes of a hateful bigot?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    The bill is dead...the Governor vetoed the bill....the republicans who supported and submitted this ALEC form bill ran away from it in droves...couldn't take the heat...we'll see it again in some southern state, and this issue won't be settled until it finally works it's way to the US Supreme Court.

    For now, the forces of good have decimated the forces of bigotry and evil!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I suppose you political hos would demand a Christian photographer have to service a wedding in the church of satan as well.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not the one who does not like the Constution of the Bill of RIghts. You are free to stay but you will have to live with the fact that here ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL  and your or anyone elses bigotry veiled behind religion or not cannot be used to circumvent our  INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights. I have no faith in judges to do anything to balance rights in a thoughtful way. After all we have had a chief justice who mandated we buy something by calling it a tax  when all the others said it wasnt

    and now, after the fact we are hearing what this law really Said, so forcing people to partipate in a gay wedding is not a stretch At all. the first time we will will have an inkling of what the SC will do be with the Sisters of the Poor against Obamacare. But once again the media has done a p poor job on purpose. The law did say that a bus person had to show real distress and proof to not serve someone based on religious objection. A far far cry from what people here have posted, a far far cry. But now the full weight of the state can come down on an invidual. It sux

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights. I have no faith in judges to do anything to balance rights in a thoughtful way. After all we have had a chief justice who mandated we buy something by calling it a tax  when all the others said it wasnt

    and now, after the fact we are hearing what this law really Said, so forcing people to partipate in a gay wedding is not a stretch At all. the first time we will will have an inkling of what the SC will do be with the Sisters of the Poor against Obamacare. But once again the media has done a p poor job on purpose. The law did say that a bus person had to show real distress and proof to not serve someone based on religious objection. A far far cry from what people here have posted, a far far cry. But now the full weight of the state can come down on an invidual. It sux

    [/QUOTE]


    Everyone has religious rights...it's the very basis of the Constiutution...however it's a violation of the 14th amendment to infringe on the rights of an entire CLASS of individuals simply because they are a member of that group...you are free to practice your religion...you are not free to deny service to a group of people for any reason...sorry, you can't twist the Constitution to fit your bigotry...but you can have ALEC appeal to the fed dsitrict court, and then, US Supreme Court...you WILL lose, but it's your right to try...

    Have a nice day!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not the one who does not like the Constution of the Bill of RIghts. You are free to stay but you will have to live with the fact that here ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL  and your or anyone elses bigotry veiled behind religion or not cannot be used to circumvent our  INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People have right guaranteed by the Constitution regarding practicing their religious beliefs and it's just TFB if those beliefs don't align with your agenda.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights. I have no faith in judges to do anything to balance rights in a thoughtful way. After all we have had a chief justice who mandated we buy something by calling it a tax  when all the others said it wasnt

    and now, after the fact we are hearing what this law really Said, so forcing people to partipate in a gay wedding is not a stretch At all. the first time we will will have an inkling of what the SC will do be with the Sisters of the Poor against Obamacare. But once again the media has done a p poor job on purpose. The law did say that a bus person had to show real distress and proof to not serve someone based on religious objection. A far far cry from what people here have posted, a far far cry. But now the full weight of the state can come down on an invidual. It sux

    [/QUOTE]


    Everyone has religious rights...it's the very basis of the Constiutution...however it's a violation of the 14th amendment to infringe on the rights of an entire CLASS of individuals simply because they are a member of that group...you are free to practice your religion...you are not free to deny service to a group of people for any reason...sorry, you can't twist the Constitution to fit your bigotry...but you can have ALEC appeal to the fed dsitrict court, and then, US Supreme Court...you WILL lose, but it's your right to try...

    Have a nice day!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well when there are two conflicting  points of view within the Constitution the 1st vs the 14th, it isn't  exactly correct what you have said. Then it is up to the SC to vet out the differences and provide guidelines in splitting the baby. This same issue will be partially decided in the little sisters of the poor vs obamacare. when this case makes it there,, I will be very interested to see if the SC will take the position that someone will have to participate in someone else's religious ceremony. After all that is what could happen in AZ. I cannot stand the idea that this will be decided in the courts. We will end up with another Abortion war that was completely unnecessary. 

    Just a few points

    1  if a kosher baker only offers kosher food, why cant a Christian baker only offer a Christian cake?

    btw, the Baker said that he would make them a birthday cake, but not provide a wedding cake. so the supposed discrimination wasn't based upon them being gay, but he didn't want to. Associate with  their behavior

    He also reccomended another baker who would make the wedding cake. The bottom line is that he would be punished by the government for not participating in the gays religious ceremony

    A basic fear of Christian leaders is that the church will be forced to provide gay weddings or lose their tax status. (And if you don't believe that I have a bridge to sell you)

    2. This is not institutional discrimination as people have the right to go to other stores , in fact major companies and many pols are supporting gays. As well as Obama

    3 the nfl, etc can do what they want but then Christians can say the hell with them too

    4 there was an eleven lawyer panel that told Brewer that the law as branded by the opponents was. Egregiously mis labeled, That the law did not make it okay to indiscriminately say that retailers could restrict who they sold to

    5 Sexual orientation is not a protected class in AZ

    6 the same day some associated this with the racial discrimination in the 1960s, The  Black Minister Org asked for a million signature petition to remove Eric Holder, the first black AG, to be impeached for his views and actions on Gay Marriage

    7 the  first amendment doesn't say you lose your relgious rights because you are a business

    Do what you will with this , but this is not a simple issue as many here ascribed to hear

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    You are free to practice your religion however you wish. It's protected, trust me. If you'd like to worship, then worship. If you'd like to pray, then pray. But don't discriminate against others based on the beliefs you hold. To say this bill is about religious freedom is disingenous, in my opinion.

    I ask you all, would you have an issue with a business refusing service to a divorced woman, or to a black individual? 

    In our sacred Constitution, we have provisions for the separation of religion and state. Now, look, I get it -- a private business is not a part of the state. However, in a decent society, people should be treated equally and fairly, regardless of personally held beliefs. I value the rights of society as a whole over the rights of a particular bigot. And yes, I say 'bigot', and I mean 'bigot'. Regardless of what the Bible says, or any other religious (or non-religious) text for that matter, discrimination against a certain group of people is bigotry. It doesn't matter where the belief originates from. But I digress.

    Let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive an automobile at 100 MPH. Now this is a rather absurd condition, I understand, but I don't see it as any more outrageous than stating that homosexuality is morally wrong. Anyhow, so let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive 100 MPH. This belief is held dearly close to my heart, and after all, it is MY religious RIGHT to practice said religion how I wish, correct? Should I therefore be allowed to drive 100 MPH at all times? Of course not! That'd be absurd, as it'd endanger countless numbers of people. 

    See where I'm going here...? All rights have some limitations on them, even speech and expression. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater, as this purports that there's a clear and present danger. But, but but...! What if my religion requires that I yell "fire" in a crowded theater?! Sorry, you can't do it, and that makes perfect sense to most sane individuals.

    Point is, all rights are limited in some sense. When your right begins to infringe on the rights of others', then a breaking point is met. Very sensibly, to this point, our political system has erred on the side of the majority, as opposed to the individual.

    RE: seawolf -- overall, that sums up my feelings on the topic. At some point, we'll have to let this topic go. I don't think I can (or will) elaborate any further on my thoughts, as there's little more to be said. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement on the liberty of the individual vs. the liberty of the majority. We all have our own personal feelings and beliefs, and that's perfectly fine -- wonderful, in fact! At some point, though, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Cheers, fellas. 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is Babe after a rough day thinking his neighbor might be gay because he doesn't race to church and Golden Corral on Sundays:

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Frankie F'n Fitts...

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 




     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Is anybody stupid enough to think smellymel3 isn't Rusty?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I ask you all, would you have an issue with a business refusing service to a divorced woman, or to a black individual? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Being black is no affront to any Christian belief and as long as the Christian didn't have to participate in the divorce of the woman, they couldn't possibly have a case saying their beliefs were being affronted.

    Being forced to participate in events that are an affront to their beliefs are a violation of the Constitution.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Of course the whole left/right thing is a blur, at least at the highest state and federal levels. Like I said in my post, I'm just waiting for the time that is approaching. It sickens me how little respect I have for them, and how little they would garner from those who founded this country. 10-1, they would spit on the graves of the likes of Adams, Hancock et al. As matter of fact, those who think that the AZ bill was terrible I have a suggestion for you. Go down to the Granary Burying Ground down on Tremont. When you get there, go spit on the graves of S. Adams, Hancock, Revere, Otis, Attucks and others. Maybe even unzip and let it fly. Because this is exactly what you are doing.  You'll say no, and all that. Whatever. When the  dust settles, if you are still alive, I wonder if they will have regret, or nothing at all. Regardless, like one of my favorite quotes says, "the stupid...it burrrrrrnnns.". 

     

Share