NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Ammostan wrote:
I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. It should be between man and God, not man and the government and God. If you're gay and want to get married fine, get married. But don't force a Christian to perform the ceremony.



A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason because it is HIS business. If he decides to alienate large sections of the population because of his beliefs it should be his right to lose tons of money. Is it your store? Do you own it? Then why do you get to decide how he runs it? Should I be forced to let anyone into my house that wants to enter? Why does the fact that it is a business make a difference? It's private property.

Don't tell me that I am a bigot for believing this. I don't want Jim Crow laws, I want free enterprise.

"I don't want Jim Crow, I just want people to be able to discriminate on racial grounds" is one hell of an odd flex.

But no, it’s that OP is religious that Dems have a problem with them

"Arsenokoitai," the Greek word used to describe homosexuality, traditionally meant pedophilia. Here's a translation from a 1912 Lutheran Bible used in the German Empire:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If somebody sleeps with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination and both shall die of death; their blood is on them."

Except that the authors of the torah were HEBREW.

Ammostan wrote:

"Arsenokoitai," the Greek word used to describe homosexuality, traditionally meant pedophilia. Here's a translation from a 1912 Lutheran Bible used in the German Empire:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If somebody sleeps with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination and both shall die of death; their blood is on them."

Except that the authors of the torah were HEBREW.

So what is the Hebrew word?

Ammostan wrote:

"Arsenokoitai," the Greek word used to describe homosexuality, traditionally meant pedophilia. Here's a translation from a 1912 Lutheran Bible used in the German Empire:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If somebody sleeps with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination and both shall die of death; their blood is on them."

Except that the authors of the torah were HEBREW.

But you were talking about Christianity, not Judaism. But sure, let's go with the New Testament.

Romans 1:27 translated:

"likewise men have also abandoned the natural custom of women and are heated to one another in their desires and have disgraced men and men and received the reward of their error (as it should be) in themselves."

Meant to shun homosexual acts from heterosexual people, not homosexual acts from homosexual people (John J. Mcneill, 1993).

Corinthians 6:9-10 translated:

"don't you know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be seduced! Neither the prostitutes nor the idols, nor the adulterers, nor the sissies, nor the boy molesters nor the thieves nor the miserly nor the drunkards nor the blasphemers nor the robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:9-10 translated:

"and knows such that there is no law given to the righteous, but to the unjust and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and the spiritual, the father-murderers and mother-killers, the homicides, the whores, the boy molesters, the thieves of men, the liars, the perjury and so much more is contrary to the wholesome teaching,"

Bible used: https://www.biblestudytools.com/lut/

Ammostan wrote:I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. It should be between man and God, not man and the government and God. If you're gay and want to get married fine, get married. But don't force a Christian to perform the ceremony.

Marriage was civic long before it was ever appropriated by religion. It predates Abrahamic fairytales by a significant margin.
Anyone who works for the government (such as that paragon of virtue Kim Davis did) you don't get to pick whom you will give marriage certificates to. You carry out your job which involves issuing those certificates to any peoples that the law says you have to give them to. And if you don't like that, resign, but don't keep collecting those checks.

Now, if some private church doesn't want to do it, that's fine, but those in official government positions (whether appointed or elected) do not get to make that choice.

It is perfectly reasonable to ensure that businesses open to the public have to play by certain rules. If they don't like that, maybe they can move to Putin's Russia where this sort of thing might be acceptable?

A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason because it is HIS business. If he decides to alienate large sections of the population because of his beliefs it should be his right to lose tons of money. Is it your store? Do you own it? Then why do you get to decide how he runs it? Should I be forced to let anyone into my house that wants to enter? Why does the fact that it is a business make a difference? It's private property.

Don't tell me that I am a bigot for believing this. I don't want Jim Crow laws, I want free enterprise.

You don't want free enterprise, you want feudalism. You want business owners to be allowed to do whatever they want, including things such as putting arsenic in sweets, or paying starvation wages, forcing people into unlimited overtime, maintaining extremely unsafe work environments and so on. Back to the 19th century eh? Bring in the Pinkertons!

"I don't want Jim Crow, I just want people to be able to discriminate on racial grounds" is one hell of an odd flex.

Because you believe that me allowing someone to be a bigot makes me a bigot by association. I don't WANT people to discriminate, but I believe they are free to do so.

Ammostan wrote:A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason because it is HIS business. If he decides to alienate large sections of the population because of his beliefs it should be his right to lose tons of money. Is it your store? Do you own it? Then why do you get to decide how he runs it? Should I be forced to let anyone into my house that wants to enter? Why does the fact that it is a business make a difference? It's private property.

This is a valid view as long as you don't start spouting hypocritical doublethink about how Facebook and Twitter are attacking your Free Speech if they choose to refuse service to Right-wingers, Libertarians, and Nationalists. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but you can look at Conservatives in Congress and see that those sorts of mental gymnastics are far from rare.

Ammostan wrote:

"I don't want Jim Crow, I just want people to be able to discriminate on racial grounds" is one hell of an odd flex.

Because you believe that me allowing someone to be a bigot makes me a bigot by association. I don't WANT people to discriminate, but I believe they are free to do so.

You're getting straw on the carpet again.

Crockerland wrote:

Ammostan wrote:A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason because it is HIS business. If he decides to alienate large sections of the population because of his beliefs it should be his right to lose tons of money. Is it your store? Do you own it? Then why do you get to decide how he runs it? Should I be forced to let anyone into my house that wants to enter? Why does the fact that it is a business make a difference? It's private property.

This is a valid view as long as you don't start spouting hypocritical doublethink about how Facebook and Twitter are attacking your Free Speech if they choose to refuse service to Right-wingers, Libertarians, and Nationalists. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but you can look at Conservatives in Congress and see that those sorts of mental gymnastics are far from rare.

Conservatives today: "Businesses should be free to do what they want!"

* some businesses decide to ban people who serially violate TOS (terms of service) *

Conservatives: "Regulate! Fine those violators of free speech! Shadow banning!"

I would not be surprised at all that if Trump loses the election, Twitter bans him on 1/21/2021 for serial violations of the TOS. The MAGAs will howl "censorship" but in reality they basically demand for themselves absolute freedom of speech without fear of consequences but if you rudely return the favor, the poor snowflakes throw temper tantrums.

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences.

Tombradyonia wrote:

Crockerland wrote:This is a valid view as long as you don't start spouting hypocritical doublethink about how Facebook and Twitter are attacking your Free Speech if they choose to refuse service to Right-wingers, Libertarians, and Nationalists. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but you can look at Conservatives in Congress and see that those sorts of mental gymnastics are far from rare.

Conservatives today: "Businesses should be free to do what they want!"

* some businesses decide to ban people who serially violate TOS (terms of service) *

Conservatives: "Regulate! Fine those violators of free speech! Shadow banning!"

I would not be surprised at all that if Trump loses the election, Twitter bans him on 1/21/2021 for serial violations of the TOS. The MAGAs will howl "censorship" but in reality they basically demand for themselves absolute freedom of speech without fear of consequences but if you rudely return the favor, the poor snowflakes throw temper tantrums.

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences.

Conservatives today: "Businesses should be free to do what they want!"

* some businesses decide to refuse service to people not wearing masks during the pandemic *

Conservatives: "That's tyranny! How dare you impugn their freedoms like that!"

I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. It should be between man and God, not man and the government and God. If you're gay and want to get married fine, get married. But don't force a Christian to perform the ceremony.

Marriage was civic long before it was ever appropriated by religion. It predates Abrahamic fairytales by a significant margin.
Anyone who works for the government (such as that paragon of virtue Kim Davis did) you don't get to pick whom you will give marriage certificates to. You carry out your job which involves issuing those certificates to any peoples that the law says you have to give them to. And if you don't like that, resign, but don't keep collecting those checks.

Now, if some private church doesn't want to do it, that's fine, but those in official government positions (whether appointed or elected) do not get to make that choice.

I see the existence of the marriage certificate itself as the problem here. Why does a marriage need to be recognized by the government at all?




A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason because it is HIS business. If he decides to alienate large sections of the population because of his beliefs it should be his right to lose tons of money. Is it your store? Do you own it? Then why do you get to decide how he runs it? Should I be forced to let anyone into my house that wants to enter? Why does the fact that it is a business make a difference? It's private property.

Don't tell me that I am a bigot for believing this. I don't want Jim Crow laws, I want free enterprise.[/quote]

You don't want free enterprise, you want feudalism. You want business owners to be allowed to do whatever they want, including things such as putting arsenic in sweets, or paying starvation wages, forcing people into unlimited overtime, maintaining extremely unsafe work environments and so on. Back to the 19th century eh? Bring in the Pinkertons![/quote]

You're equally free not to do business with them.

I live in one of those two dark green states in the deep south and religion is important here both among the liberals and conservatives. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference MLK helped found had a significant lot to do with black baptism. No I can absolutely straight up tell you that correlation isn't causation here. As a Christian myself however, I can tell you it is a factor in other reactionary positions held down here. It doesn't have to be.

Ammostan wrote:

Tombradyonia wrote:
Marriage was civic long before it was ever appropriated by religion. It predates Abrahamic fairytales by a significant margin.
Anyone who works for the government (such as that paragon of virtue Kim Davis did) you don't get to pick whom you will give marriage certificates to. You carry out your job which involves issuing those certificates to any peoples that the law says you have to give them to. And if you don't like that, resign, but don't keep collecting those checks.

Now, if some private church doesn't want to do it, that's fine, but those in official government positions (whether appointed or elected) do not get to make that choice.

You don't want free enterprise, you want feudalism. You want business owners to be allowed to do whatever they want, including things such as putting arsenic in sweets, or paying starvation wages, forcing people into unlimited overtime, maintaining extremely unsafe work environments and so on. Back to the 19th century eh? Bring in the Pinkertons!

You're equally free not to do business with them.

"It's not discrimination if you can go somewhere else."

Everybody drink.

Ammostan wrote:

Tombradyonia wrote:
Marriage was civic long before it was ever appropriated by religion. It predates Abrahamic fairytales by a significant margin.
Anyone who works for the government (such as that paragon of virtue Kim Davis did) you don't get to pick whom you will give marriage certificates to. You carry out your job which involves issuing those certificates to any peoples that the law says you have to give them to. And if you don't like that, resign, but don't keep collecting those checks.

Now, if some private church doesn't want to do it, that's fine, but those in official government positions (whether appointed or elected) do not get to make that choice.

You don't want free enterprise, you want feudalism. You want business owners to be allowed to do whatever they want, including things such as putting arsenic in sweets, or paying starvation wages, forcing people into unlimited overtime, maintaining extremely unsafe work environments and so on. Back to the 19th century eh? Bring in the Pinkertons!

You're equally free not to do business with them.

Close your business. Go online then you don't have to worry about darkies or gays.

Tombradyonia wrote:
Marriage was civic long before it was ever appropriated by religion.

What does "civic" mean in this context, and what historical evidence is this based off of?

I didn't say that it WASN'T discrimination. I said that he was free to do so. I ALSO said that he SHOULDN'T. Again, please stop characterizing me as a bigot.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Ammostan wrote:
You're equally free not to do business with them.

Close your business. Go online then you don't have to worry about darkies or gays.

Don't tell me what to do with my business.

Ammostan wrote:I didn't say that it WASN'T discrimination. I said that he was free to do so. I ALSO said that he SHOULDN'T. Again, please stop characterizing me as a bigot.

No historical civil rights activist here in AL or the deep south would see a difference between your willingness to protect the rights of racists to be racist and the racists who want to be racist.I can guarantee you that much.

Ammostan wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Close your business. Go online then you don't have to worry about darkies or gays.

Don't tell me what to do with my business.

Always nice to see someone who has never experienced discrimination telling us it should be legal. Do you support Trump’s decree that trans people don’t deserve healthcare too?

Ankras wrote:

Ammostan wrote:I didn't say that it WASN'T discrimination. I said that he was free to do so. I ALSO said that he SHOULDN'T. Again, please stop characterizing me as a bigot.

No historical civil rights activist here in AL or the deep south would see a difference between your willingness to protect the rights of racists to be racist and the racists who want to be racist.I can guarantee you that much.

It’s complicity with racism, which, IMO, is worse than racism, because you fucking KNOW it’s wrong.

Also, a business provides a service to other, your home does not, so your dumb comparison doesn’t even work!

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:In 2016, I recall hearing people blame MRAs for Trump, as if he didn't himself invoke misandrous-sounding rhetoric like "a lot of these refugees are men" or as if the supposed alternative; feminism; even had any real definition at all.

In 2020, I get mistaken for a Trump supporter whenever I express rhetoric similar to his on China.

However, there is one thing that actually does correlate; far more incontrovertibly, at least; with support for Donald Trump. And that thing is something people feel a lot more uncomfortable blaming for his election.

The popularity of religion.

What say you, NSG?

Correlation does not equate causation pal.

Centai Mal wrote:

Ankras wrote:
No historical civil rights activist here in AL or the deep south would see a difference between your willingness to protect the rights of racists to be racist and the racists who want to be racist.I can guarantee you that much.

It’s complicity with racism, which, IMO, is worse than racism, because you fucking KNOW it’s wrong.

Also, a business provides a service to other, your home does not, so your dumb comparison doesn’t even work!

Pointing at the Letter from the Birmingham Jail sign.

Ammostan wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Close your business. Go online then you don't have to worry about darkies or gays.

Don't tell me what to do with my business.

Then don't tell me I can't enter your store.

Nobody has an issue with you ejecting somebody who is disruptive, making outrageous demands, arguing over the price, etc.

Being black or gay? Not a reason.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Ammostan wrote:
Don't tell me what to do with my business.

Then don't tell me I can't enter your store.

Nobody has an issue with you ejecting somebody who is disruptive, making outrageous demands, arguing over the price, etc.

Being black or gay? Not a reason.

not sure where you guys are from but in my country refusing services to someone based on sexuality, ethnicity, etc is illegal.

Nevertopia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Then don't tell me I can't enter your store.

Nobody has an issue with you ejecting somebody who is disruptive, making outrageous demands, arguing over the price, etc.

Being black or gay? Not a reason.

not sure where you guys are from but in my country refusing services to someone based on sexuality, ethnicity, etc is illegal.

It is in the US as well. However, we have many people ranging from those who believe in the myth of the completely free market to just outright racists who think it's wrong for laws to oppress their liberty.