Homosexuals bigots and the unlawful denial of service

by Guest Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:58 am

First topic message reminder :

On October 1, activists from the group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) took a break from handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, and went to Bedlam Coffee in Seattle, Washington.

As the activists quietly drank their brew, the owner of the shop, Ben Borgman, entered the room and demanded that they leave. Although the group had allegedly not handed out any pamphlets in the shop, Borgman had one in his possession, and was offended by what he saw.

Holding the anti-abortion material, which can be seen in the video footage initially uploaded to Facebook, Borgman says: "I’m gay. You have to leave." A female activists then asks: "Are you denying us service?" to which Borgman replies: "I am, yeah."

The conversation continues, with a male activist asking: "So, why aren’t we allowed to stay?" Borgman answers: "This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have a right to be offended."

After an increasingly terse discussion, Borgman becomes more agitated. Pointing to the pamphlet, he says: "This is you; I do not want these people in this place. This is extremely offensive."

When one of the activists notes that Borgman was "not willing to tolerate our presence," the coffee shop owner becomes visibly angry, and the exchange goes on from there:

BORGMAN: Can you tolerate my presence?

ACTIVIST: We are. We’re actually in your coffee shop.

BORGMAN: Really? If I go get my boyfriend right now and f**k him in the a** right here, you’re going to tolerate that?

ACTIVIST: That would be your choice.

BORGMAN: Are you going to tolerate it? Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it.

ACTIVIST: Well, no, I mean, we don’t want to watch that.

BORGMAN: Well then, I don’t have to f***ing tolerate this. Then leave — all of you! Tell all your f**king friends don’t come here!

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22042/lesson-free-market-economics-gay-shop-owner-kicks-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:04 am

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:On October 1, activists from the group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) took a break from handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, and went to Bedlam Coffee in Seattle, Washington.

As the activists quietly drank their brew, the owner of the shop, Ben Borgman, entered the room and demanded that they leave. Although the group had allegedly not handed out any pamphlets in the shop, Borgman had one in his possession, and was offended by what he saw.

Holding the anti-abortion material, which can be seen in the video footage initially uploaded to Facebook, Borgman says: "I’m gay. You have to leave." A female activists then asks: "Are you denying us service?" to which Borgman replies: "I am, yeah."

The conversation continues, with a male activist asking: "So, why aren’t we allowed to stay?" Borgman answers: "This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have a right to be offended."

After an increasingly terse discussion, Borgman becomes more agitated. Pointing to the pamphlet, he says: "This is you; I do not want these people in this place. This is extremely offensive."

When one of the activists notes that Borgman was "not willing to tolerate our presence," the coffee shop owner becomes visibly angry, and the exchange goes on from there:

BORGMAN: Can you tolerate my presence?

ACTIVIST: We are. We’re actually in your coffee shop.

BORGMAN: Really? If I go get my boyfriend right now and f**k him in the a** right here, you’re going to tolerate that?

ACTIVIST: That would be your choice.

BORGMAN: Are you going to tolerate it? Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it.

ACTIVIST: Well, no, I mean, we don’t want to watch that.

BORGMAN: Well then, I don’t have to f***ing tolerate this. Then leave — all of you! Tell all your f**king friends don’t come here!

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22042/lesson-free-market-economics-gay-shop-owner-kicks-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

People should be free to associate with whom they choose. Forcing one person to serve another is state sponsored slavery.

Jews should not have to serve Nazis, Blacks should not have to serve Klan members, and gay and/or Christians should be able to not serve each other.

Creating different classes of people be law, is hardly fair and hardly the advancement of justice.

that's were you're wrong

it is 2017 after all, and there have been court rulings that say the opposite, court rulings that say no matter what you as the owner are forced to serve those whose views you dont like

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:10 am

eddie wrote:My opinions on homosexuality haven't changed, no.
On abortion, no.
But I wasn't born thinking that way.
My parents, for example, didn't agree with interracial relationships and I totally went against that line of thinking and after meeting a really nice black guy I was dating, they changed their minds. So their thinking didn't rub off on me.

I don't think you totally and utterly believe half of what you think. I believe you just don't want to think another way.
But then, I see the good in everyone.

yeah eddie, you weren't born that way and yet your opinions haven't and are unlikely to change.

elizel was born gay and his sexuality hasn't and is unlikely to change

so how is his sexuality different to your views on abortion and homosexuality??

both are part of you as people

both are set in stone which means both of you are incapable as people of being the opposite of what you currently are

so hows its different??

some opinions and beliefs are not optional

by Eilzel Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:32 am

But beliefs aren't set in stone, are they?

If it could be decisively proven that being gay brought some unmistakable evil to the world- people would not accept it.

If it could be proven that all life was fully conscious and as able to feel etc as a real human from conception, many would oppose abortion.

You can try and convince a gay or straight person all you like that the opposite/same gender is more attractive/desirable to them and it won't work. You think your views and beliefs are unchageable but in reality further experience can and miggmht yet change some of those views.

Have you never changed a single view of yours smelly? Did you always totally accept gay people and gay marriage?

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:27 am

Eilzel wrote:But beliefs aren't set in stone, are they?

If it could be decisively proven that being gay brought some unmistakable evil to the world- people would not accept it.

If it could be proven that all life was fully conscious and as able to feel etc as a real human from conception, many would oppose abortion.

You can try and convince a gay or straight person all you like that the opposite/same gender is more attractive/desirable to them and it won't work. You think your views and beliefs are unchageable but in reality further experience can and miggmht yet change some of those views.

Have you never changed a single view of yours smelly? Did you always totally accept gay people and gay marriage?

thats where youre wrong

beliefs are set in stone, Im not talking about an "opinion" about the new iphone or some other kind of irrelevant shit.

im talking beliefs, most notably religious beliefs, since thats the factor this thread, versus sexuality

neither one is a choice

you might have been born gay but i was raised a christian and yet neither one of us could or will change what we are NOW.

you avoid a point i have brought up twice now so im going to put it straight to you, you're a coward so i doubt you will answer it directly but who knows??

maybe you've changed your opinion on being a coward. Homosexuals bigots and the unlawful denial of service - Page 2 3852033631

Homosexuals bigots and the unlawful denial of service - Page 2 3852033631

Christians have over the centuries faced brutal and lethal persecution for their religious views, untold numbers have perished because they have been unwilling and unable to abandon their faith even unto death. Death was a preferable choice over apostasy.

you and your new husband are on your honeymoon and are walking along a secluded beach, you come round a rocky outcropping and stumble on the makeshift camp of several roughly dressed men and a single woman.

the men approach you and state that they believe you are gay and that if you are they will kill you instantly, they then say that if you are not gay you must have sex with the woman to prove it, once you have proved it you and your husband / fellow traveler friend will be free to go.

would you choose death for you and your partner instead of abandoning your sexuality??

is you say you're gay and choose death, then you simply prove that to some Christians their beliefs are unchangeable as your sexuality is

if you say you're straight and choose life then you simply prove that your sexuality is a choice and not nearly so set in stone as some peoples religious faith

that by the way is not unrealistic, Christians throughout history have faced that exact choice many times over

so elizel whats it gonna be??

FYI, ive always accepted gays and gay marriage, what i never accepted and will never accepted is being told what to think and what opinions to have, my "opposition to gay marriage" was entirely centered around NOT forcing churches and people to perform the ceremony against their will.

your opinion that i was anti gay and anti gay marriage, was an opinion you chose to adopt and it is as wrong now as it has always been, so don't you think its time you changed it?

by Eilzel Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:37 am

Your scenario fails logically. I might want to be able to do something with that woman, to save us both, but it won't happen because it 'can't' happen (nothing going on down there you see lol).

I agree to a point, on religion. If you are ultra devout then you may be convinced to the point you cannot stop believing 'just like that'. Yet my own experience and millions of others proves faith is very changeable.

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:01 am

Eilzel wrote:Your scenario fails logically. I might want to be able to do something with that woman, to save us both, but it won't happen because it 'can't' happen (nothing going on down there you see lol).

I agree to a point, on religion. If you are ultra devout then you may be convinced to the point you cannot stop believing 'just like that'. Yet my own experience and millions of others proves faith is very changeable.

youre nit picking and avoiding the question as predicted, because you're a coward

the scenario is hypothetical based on factual events that have occurred in the past.

its not a question about whether you can physically perform the task, but simply to question whether you would choose to perform the task, you have diverted from the central question and focused on an irrelevant detail because the answer is too uncomfortable for you

oh where oh here has the elizel who wasn't scared of answering my moral dilemma questions gone??

bring him back, i want to ask him a question.

by Maddog Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:54 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:

People should be free to associate with whom they choose. Forcing one person to serve another is state sponsored slavery.

Jews should not have to serve Nazis, Blacks should not have to serve Klan members, and gay and/or Christians should be able to not serve each other.

Creating different classes of people be law, is hardly fair and hardly the advancement of justice.

that's were you're wrong

it is 2017 after all, and there have been court rulings that say the opposite, court rulings that say no matter what you as the owner are forced to serve those whose views you dont like

My belief system is often at odds with the law, because unlike the law, I am consistent and defend the rights of the individual.

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:05 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

There must be opinions you hold that will never change, abortion for instance??

How about homosexuality?? Would you could you ever be opposed to it??

I don't know how you can't see how similar they can sometimes be.

I was once opposed to homosexuality and abortion, as I was a Catholic.

So there is two opinions I changed on.

What it shows is that I could look critically at my own views and changed them.

It shows you are afraid to critically look at your own beliefs

I see smelly ran away from responding and still speaking Double Dutch

So its nothing about opinions being set in stone, its about being to afraid to look critical at your beliefs as you would do of ones you would think are wrong.

This is why smelly is unable to take thee "outsider test on faith"

I mean what else has he got to lose?

Clearly he fears that his opinion will change.

Hence the double standard he is applying here.

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:10 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Your scenario fails logically. I might want to be able to do something with that woman, to save us both, but it won't happen because it 'can't' happen (nothing going on down there you see lol).

I agree to a point, on religion. If you are ultra devout then you may be convinced to the point you cannot stop believing 'just like that'. Yet my own experience and millions of others proves faith is very changeable.

youre nit picking and avoiding the question as predicted, because you're a coward

the scenario is hypothetical based on factual events that have occurred in the past.

its not a question about whether you can physically perform the task, but simply to question whether you would choose to perform the task, you have diverted from the central question and focused on an irrelevant detail because the answer is too uncomfortable for you

oh where oh here has the elizel who wasn't scared of answering my moral dilemma questions gone??

bring him back, i want to ask him a question.

PMSL

How can you force yourself to get sexually arouse and maintain that in sex if you are not atracted to the person? Now I know you could get yourself aroused I supposed by closing your eyes, but that thought is going to enter your mind still who you are having sex with and when that happens. Its then not gointg to happen is it.

Are you telling me you would be able to have anal sex with a man if your life depended on it?

That you could maintain an erection

Someone has just dug themselves a hole

So lets see if smelly is really hetrosexual or actually bisexual.

lol!

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:11 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

that's were you're wrong

it is 2017 after all, and there have been court rulings that say the opposite, court rulings that say no matter what you as the owner are forced to serve those whose views you dont like

My belief system is often at odds with the law, because unlike the law, I am consistent and defend the rights of the individual.

problem is that all individuals now have rights

many times those rights are in direct competition with each other. so when you find yourself facing two separate individuals who "rights" if observed would the opposite number to have his rights trampled, who do you support??

the law has become fluid and very biased, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace on the ground of race for example, but the government constantly allows such determination to take place.

just the other day, i think it was the transport police were criticized for banning white men from their recruitment workshop, illegal discrimination made legal

by Maddog Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:32 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:

My belief system is often at odds with the law, because unlike the law, I am consistent and defend the rights of the individual.

problem is that all individuals now have rights

many times those rights are in direct competition with each other. so when you find yourself facing two separate individuals who "rights" if observed would the opposite number to have his rights trampled, who do you support??

the law has become fluid and very biased, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace on the ground of race for example, but the government constantly allows such determination to take place.

just the other day, i think it was the transport police were criticized for banning white men from their recruitment workshop, illegal discrimination made legal

In almost all cases it can be answered by the NAP.

Are the exercising of my rights harming, or likely to harm another individual, which would be taking away his right to not be harmed?

And by harmed, I mean physically hurt.

by Guest Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:13 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

problem is that all individuals now have rights

many times those rights are in direct competition with each other. so when you find yourself facing two separate individuals who "rights" if observed would the opposite number to have his rights trampled, who do you support??

the law has become fluid and very biased, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace on the ground of race for example, but the government constantly allows such determination to take place.

just the other day, i think it was the transport police were criticized for banning white men from their recruitment workshop, illegal discrimination made legal

In almost all cases it can be answered by the NAP.

Are the exercising of my rights harming, or likely to harm another individual, which would be taking away his right to not be harmed?

And by harmed, I mean physically hurt.

So if society declared blacks to be second class citizens and passed laws like, no voting for blacks, or blacks have to be home by curfew that would be ok because it isn't physically harming anyone??

by Maddog Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:16 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:

In almost all cases it can be answered by the NAP.

Are the exercising of my rights harming, or likely to harm another individual, which would be taking away his right to not be harmed?

And by harmed, I mean physically hurt.

So if society declared blacks to be second class citizens and passed laws like, no voting for blacks, or blacks have to be home by curfew that would be ok because it isn't physically harming anyone??

I should have added that all people would be considered equally under the law (except children and those deemed to have limited mental abilities). The government can't discriminate, but individuals can.

by Eilzel Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:25 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Your scenario fails logically. I might want to be able to do something with that woman, to save us both, but it won't happen because it 'can't' happen (nothing going on down there you see lol).

I agree to a point, on religion. If you are ultra devout then you may be convinced to the point you cannot stop believing 'just like that'. Yet my own experience and millions of others proves faith is very changeable.

youre nit picking and avoiding the question as predicted, because you're a coward

the scenario is hypothetical based on factual events that have occurred in the past.

its not a question about whether you can physically perform the task, but simply to question whether you would choose to perform the task, you have diverted from the central question and focused on an irrelevant detail because the answer is too uncomfortable for you

oh where oh here has the elizel who wasn't scared of answering my moral dilemma questions gone??

bring him back, i want to ask him a question.

It's not nit picking, this dilemma doesn't work.

Do you think there weren't times when I was younger when I wouldn't have chosen not to br gay if I had a choice? Of course I would. But it wasn't a choice, no matter how much I wanted.

So in your scenario I'd try to tell them I was straight, to save our lives, for the sake of life I'd even try (as much as I'd hate it) but fail to prove as much miserably.

That does not equate with religion. They couldn't prove that either way.

And creating scenarios here is pretty silly since mine and other's experience destroys your argument. I had faith and now don't. At one time I wished not to be gay but couldn't help but be turned on by a pretty guys face or smooth abs Smile

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:54 am

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

So if society declared blacks to be second class citizens and passed laws like, no voting for blacks, or blacks have to be home by curfew that would be ok because it isn't physically harming anyone??

I should have added that all people would be considered equally under the law (except children and those deemed to have limited mental abilities). The government can't discriminate, but individuals can.

i though the police came under a governmental department??

yet they discriminated based on race namely being white was a reason for exclusion

no government law maker has stepped in to reverse and punish the decision

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:27 am

Eilzel wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

youre nit picking and avoiding the question as predicted, because you're a coward

the scenario is hypothetical based on factual events that have occurred in the past.

its not a question about whether you can physically perform the task, but simply to question whether you would choose to perform the task, you have diverted from the central question and focused on an irrelevant detail because the answer is too uncomfortable for you

oh where oh here has the elizel who wasn't scared of answering my moral dilemma questions gone??

bring him back, i want to ask him a question.

It's not nit picking, this dilemma doesn't work.

Do you think there weren't times when I was younger when I wouldn't have chosen not to br gay if I had a choice? Of course I would. But it wasn't a choice, no matter how much I wanted.

So in your scenario I'd try to tell them I was straight, to save our lives, for the sake of life I'd even try (as much as I'd hate it) but fail to prove as much miserably.

That does not equate with religion. They couldn't prove that either way.

And creating scenarios here is pretty silly since mine and other's experience destroys your argument. I had faith and now don't. At one time I wished not to be gay but couldn't help but be turned on by a pretty guys face or smooth abs

the scenario has served its purpose elizel

it has proved that belief like sexuality is either set in stone or subject to change

you have chosen life and by doing so you would deny and abandon your gay identity and embrace something you arent, you would have changed your sexuality at will

the fact that you couldn't physically rise to the challenge ,(good pun eh??),is neither here nor there.

the point of the scenario was to see whether your sexuality was set in stone and whether you would CHOOSE to die rather than abandon who you are, you have shown that it is subject to change since your answer means you would CHOOSE to abandon it.

Christians in the past have died because the CHOSE to hold true to their faith and who they are basing their choice on a question of principle and faith not on physical or practical ability, it would be easier to abandon who they are but they were unable to do so, death was a better option

faith is not a choice, you didn't wake up one day and choose to stop believing, but sometimes faith and belief fades away to be replaced with something else or nothing else.

your sexuality is a choice since you consciously chose from one second to the next to go from gay to straight for the sake of life over death.

you would still be gay, that could never change, and many Christians who have abandoned their faith for life would in a lot of cases still be christian underneath.

have i ever told you about my cousin? came out as gay when she was around her earlier 20's or something like that,had the full support of family and friends, had multiple gay partners, as far as everyone knew she was a happy gay woman.

a few years ago she came out as straight and is now married to a man.

youre the subject matter expert on homosexuality so if sexuality is set in stone, you tell me how that works??

by Eilzel Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:20 am

Are you simple, smelly?

I didn't choose my sexuality though did I. I wanted too, but as you put it, I couldn't rose to it in your scenario. Your own logic there proves it. You aren't gay or straight on a say so, it isn't a whimsical statement or pov. You are gay if you are attracted to the same gender, straigt if attracted to the opposite gender, and bi if you like both. If you say you are straight but still aren't turned on by the opposite gendee but are turned on by the same, you aren't really straight you're just lying. Your cousin is bi, if she could find a woman attractive before she still could no. She may also be attracted to men, that doesn't negate previous attraction. Marriage alone doesn't define sexuality.

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:41 am

Eilzel wrote:Are you simple, smelly?

I didn't choose my sexuality though did I. I wanted too, but as you put it, I couldn't rose to it in your scenario. Your own logic there proves it. You aren't gay or straight on a say so, it isn't a whimsical statement or pov. You are gay if you are attracted to the same gender, straigt if attracted to the opposite gender, and bi if you like both. If you say you are straight but still aren't turned on by the opposite gendee but are turned on by the same, you aren't really straight you're just lying. Your cousin is bi, if she could find a woman attractive before she still could no. She may also be attracted to men, that doesn't negate previous attraction. Marriage alone doesn't define sexuality.

You didn't choose your faith as a young boy either did you??

by Eilzel Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:43 am

No, it was effectively forced upon me. Then I lost it, because it can be lost.

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:22 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

youre nit picking and avoiding the question as predicted, because you're a coward

the scenario is hypothetical based on factual events that have occurred in the past.

its not a question about whether you can physically perform the task, but simply to question whether you would choose to perform the task, you have diverted from the central question and focused on an irrelevant detail because the answer is too uncomfortable for you

oh where oh here has the elizel who wasn't scared of answering my moral dilemma questions gone??

bring him back, i want to ask him a question.

PMSL

How can you force yourself to get sexually arouse and maintain that in sex if you are not atracted to the person? Now I know you could get yourself aroused I supposed by closing your eyes, but that thought is going to enter your mind still who you are having sex with and when that happens. Its then not gointg to happen is it.

Are you telling me you would be able to have anal sex with a man if your life depended on it?

That you could maintain an erection

Someone has just dug themselves a hole

So lets see if smelly is really hetrosexual or actually bisexual.

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:23 pm

Didge wrote:

I was once opposed to homosexuality and abortion, as I was a Catholic.

So there is two opinions I changed on.

What it shows is that I could look critically at my own views and changed them.

It shows you are afraid to critically look at your own beliefs

So its nothing about opinions being set in stone, its about being too afraid to look critically at your own beliefs as you would do of ones you would think are wrong.

This is why smelly you are unable to take the "outsider test on faith"

I mean what else havw you got to lose?

Clearly you fear that your opinions will change.

Hence the double standard ou are applying here.

Still waiting smelly

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:35 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

It's not nit picking, this dilemma doesn't work.

Do you think there weren't times when I was younger when I wouldn't have chosen not to br gay if I had a choice? Of course I would. But it wasn't a choice, no matter how much I wanted.

So in your scenario I'd try to tell them I was straight, to save our lives, for the sake of life I'd even try (as much as I'd hate it) but fail to prove as much miserably.

That does not equate with religion. They couldn't prove that either way.

And creating scenarios here is pretty silly since mine and other's experience destroys your argument. I had faith and now don't. At one time I wished not to be gay but couldn't help but be turned on by a pretty guys face or smooth abs

the scenario has served its purpose elizel

it has proved that belief like sexuality is either set in stone or subject to change

you have chosen life and by doing so you would deny and abandon your gay identity and embrace something you arent, you would have changed your sexuality at will

the fact that you couldn't physically rise to the challenge ,(good pun eh??),is neither here nor there.

the point of the scenario was to see whether your sexuality was set in stone and whether you would CHOOSE to die rather than abandon who you are, you have shown that it is subject to change since your answer means you would CHOOSE to abandon it.

Illogical on every single point.

The point is not a choice, as there is no choice to begin with.

If you cannot activelly become aroused to then have sex with someone, then there is no choice to start with.

Death then is the end game and thus the game is rigged.

Hence there never was a choice to start with.

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:37 pm

Eilzel wrote:No, it was effectively forced upon me. Then I lost it, because it can be lost.

Could we say you were born into Christianity??

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:43 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:No, it was effectively forced upon me. Then I lost it, because it can be lost.

Could we say you were born into Christianity??

How can you be born into something that is a belief?

I mean based on your reasoning and what Muslims believe, then you were born a Muslim.

Correct?

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:47 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Could we say you were born into Christianity??

How can you be born into something that is a belief?

I mean based on your reasoning and what Muslims believe, then you were born a Muslim.

Correct?

Correct

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:48 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:

Correct?

So you believe you were a Muslim and thus left Islam and thus changed your opinion correct?

Opps

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:57 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Correct?

So you believe you were a Muslim and thus left Islam and thus changed your opinion correct?

Opps

Never denied I was a "Muslim" Didge

Too bad you don't know what Muslim actually means, if you did you would understand

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:00 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you believe you were a Muslim and thus left Islam and thus changed your opinion correct?

Opps

Never denied I was a "Muslim" Didge

Too bad you don't know what Muslim actually means, if you did you would understand

So you believe you are still a Muslim then and follow Islam?

So I understand you are very much on the ropes here and you know it

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:13 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Never denied I was a "Muslim" Didge

Too bad you don't know what Muslim actually means, if you did you would understand

So you believe you are still a Muslim then and follow Islam?

So I understand you are very much on the ropes here and you know it

III be always been a Muslim didge

If you knew what Muslim actually means you would understand

If you knew what Islam actually means you would understand

Anyway you're diverting, and I'm done playing with you

by Guest Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:16 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you believe you are still a Muslim then and follow Islam?

So I understand you are very much on the ropes here and you know it

III be always been a Muslim didge

If you knew what Muslim actually means you would understand

If you knew what Islam actually means you would understand

Anyway you're diverting, and I'm done playing with you

I think its you diverting buddy

I know what it means but surely you can provide us all what you think it means smelly, as all of us are up for a good laugh.

Do you need a shovel before you answer, to help you dig yourself out?

by Maddog Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:18 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I should have added that all people would be considered equally under the law (except children and those deemed to have limited mental abilities). The government can't discriminate, but individuals can.

i though the police came under a governmental department??

yet they discriminated based on race namely being white was a reason for exclusion

no government law maker has stepped in to reverse and punish the decision

I meant in Maddogland.

Not where we live now, where the government panders to all sots of people in exchange for money and voted.

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:23 am

A cafe owner kicked a group of Christians out of his coffee shop because he was 'offended' by their leaflets calling for the abolition of abortion.

Members of the Abolish Human Abortion group decided to take a break from leafleting at Seattle's Bedlam Cafe, but when the owner realised who was drinking in his shop, he reacted furiously.

Ben Borgman told the group to leave because he is gay .

In the video of the rant, he says: "I'm gay, you have to leave."

Asked if he is denying them service, he says "yes".

He continues: "This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have the right to be offended.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-11310237

by magica Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:35 am

Oh so if a cafe owner threw him out because he was gay, that would be ok then.

The hypocrisy.

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:41 am

The owner was a complete dickhead.

by Syl Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:03 pm

Why does the fact he is gay have anything to do with it....what exactly was he objecting to?

by Miffs2 Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:18 pm

Syl wrote:Why does the fact he is gay have anything to do with it....what exactly was he objecting to?

Don't think he was sure himself. Just kept banging on about being gay.
What a vile little twat.

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:23 pm

Syl wrote:Why does the fact he is gay have anything to do with it....what exactly was he objecting to?

He claims he was objecting to their anti abortion stance.

He was an idiot and backs the methodology of the likes of the far right, that then can deny service to someone, due to what they believe. As they feel offended by what they believe.

So such a stance would open up the door to countless Muslims being discriminated by such Far Right bigot owners.

To discriminate against someone on their beliefs is wrong

It simple opens up the door to mass discrimination.

Here is a another article on this

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9

So no matter how he may have felt offended, that does not mean he can discriminate against people.

The only way he would have a right here, is if they came in not for a drink, but to promote views against homosexuality.

Then the owner would have a right to ask them to leave

AS those protesting would be discriminating againt him.

Here by all the accounts they only came for a drink

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:48 pm

I think the Christian group were very polite and even kept quiet when told shut up , they showed control and behaved well .

I wonder if they will sue the owner because there really was no need to not serve them they were not offending anyone as far as I can tell .

I think the gay owner was challenged by them because they Christians .

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:58 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I think the Christian group were very polite and even kept quiet when told shut up , they showed control and behaved well .

I wonder if they will sue the owner because there really was no need to not serve them they were not offending anyone as far as I can tell .

I think the gay owner was challenged by them because they Christians .

He has Christian friends, read the other link.

I agree what he did is wrong and if it is wrong.

Then the same must apply when homosexuals are refused service.

To use this video is like sassy on the other thread.

Its done with the best intentions, but ends up actually making prejudice loads worse

It fails to tackle that problem

by Original Quill Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:05 pm

Gay could be construed as religion. Therefore he is exercising his First Amendment rights.

Finally, that right is being put to good use. cheers

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:Gay could be construed as religion. Therefore he is exercising his First Amendment rights.

Finally, that right is being put to good use.

So you think being gay is a belief and must be controlled

I think you just insulted their rights

by Original Quill Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Gay could be construed as religion. Therefore he is exercising his First Amendment rights.

Finally, that right is being put to good use.

So you think being gay is a belief and must be controlled

I think you just insulted their rights

I think you just insulted gays. I thot you were always a bit homophobic.

There is no control over religion in the US. It says:

US Constitution wrote:The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion...

There is no "controlling" that which is prohibited from restriction. The Constitution protects any religion.

The Supreme Court has never defined what is a religion. It likewise avoids any attempt to say what is not a religion. Therefore, any self-professed religion is such by the claiming.

I think this is a successful move.

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you think being gay is a belief and must be controlled

I think you just insulted their rights

I think you just insulted gays. I thot you were always a bit homophobic.

There is no control over religion in the US. It says:

US Constitution wrote:The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion...

There is no "controlling" that which is prohibited from restriction. Religion protects any religion.

The Supreme Court has never defined what is a religion. It likewise avoids any attempt to say what is not a religion. Therefore, any self-professed religion is such by the claiming.

I think this is a successful move.

So you think by me defending gay rights makes me homophobic?

Based on what exactly?

We again not talking about beliefs here and you must think homosexuality is a belief and not somethihng people born as are

If you think its okay to be prejudiced, then you have become one with the Far Right and Trump

by Original Quill Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I think you just insulted gays. I thot you were always a bit homophobic.

There is no control over religion in the US. It says:

There is no "controlling" that which is prohibited from restriction. Religion protects any religion.

The Supreme Court has never defined what is a religion. It likewise avoids any attempt to say what is not a religion. Therefore, any self-professed religion is such by the claiming.

I think this is a successful move.

So you think by me defending gay rights makes me homophobic?

Based on what exactly?

We again not talking about beliefs here and you must think homosexuality is a belief and not somethihng people born as are

If you think its okay to be prejudiced, then you have become one with the Far Right and Trump

Because you have offended gays. You oppose a gay's right to take a religious stand. Homosexuality need not be a belief, in order to have a belief. It's entirely possible for homosexuality to be a physical as well as a moral conviction.

One could well argue: I am homosexual by birth, and I believe it is ordained by god. In that case he would be simply redoubling his status, and restating it as a religion.

Not everything is a polarity, as you often suggest, didge.

by eddie Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:51 pm

Haven't we already got this thread - started days ago? scratch

by Original Quill Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:00 pm

eddie wrote:Haven't we already got this thread - started days ago?

I haven't seen another thread. Do you have a cite?

by eddie Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Haven't we already got this thread - started days ago?

I haven't seen another thread. Do you have a cite?

This one?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t22184-homosexuals-bigots-and-the-unlawful-denial-of-service

It's the same story, right? I'm very hungover so I may be wrong. Neutral

by Original Quill Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:50 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I haven't seen another thread. Do you have a cite?

This one?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t22184-homosexuals-bigots-and-the-unlawful-denial-of-service

It's the same story, right? I'm very hungover so I may be wrong.

I never got involved with the other one. It appears the same. Why don't you merge the two?

by Guest Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:09 pm

eddie wrote:Haven't we already got this thread - started days ago?

Yep

I started it

by eddie Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:42 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Haven't we already got this thread - started days ago?

I haven't seen another thread. Do you have a cite?

This one?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t22184-homosexuals-bigots-and-the-unlawful-denial-of-service

It's the same story, right? I'm very hungover so I may be wrong.

TOPICS MERGED