We need to combat Christianphobia

[atlkvb]

I didn't intend this post for you; it was for Brush Bill. But, since you answered, I will reply. Religion is not political; it is available for everyone and outlines a path persons are to follow. Problem with that is people interpret religion to accomadate their interpretation.

It's not political in the sense of party building, however the "politics" of belief is as rancourous as ordinary political discourse.

You are correct about how folks choose religion to accommodate their own personal beliefs, and that's where it gets political.

If you follow Christ of course he wasn't about Religion, but those who don't follow him use Politics in part to justify their dissent.

 

[atlkvb]

Like telling someone they can’t get an abortion.

Like telling two men they can’t marry each other.

Country if you believe human life is worth saving, then you're not telling someone NOT to get an abortion. You're protecting that human Life. Now if you want to argue it's not a human Life, fine. Let's settle on another definition and when you kill it, let's call it something besides ending an innocent human Life.

There is a reason we have laws against murder. Every Life is human. What else is it if it is not human and alive?

As far as two men (or women) who want to committ to a Monogamous union they can still do that. But again, let's call it something besides Marriage...which by definition is a commitment between a Man and a Woman.

Just as it takes a Man and a Woman to procreate, so too it takes a Man and a Woman to Marry. A man who wants to share that commitment to another Man is free to do so, it's just not Marriage...just like they can't procreate.

Let's call it something else then recognizing that difference. Gay-comingling...or Manisizing...or Lesbolinking...something besides "Marriage".

A husband and a Wife means a Man and a Woman. Just like a boy and a girl. Male/Female.

As it is, has been, and remains through all of nature.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't disagree with your premise. I do wonder if you'd feel the same if a Christian employee of a business got fired because his religious beliefs wouldn't let him design an invitation for a same sex wedding. I'm not trying to say that you'd have a problem with that. I'm honestly curious. Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

If that person was hired to do a job and refused based only his Religious beliefs, he has no case. He should be fired then. He was hired and accepted the job knowing what was required to perform it.

If on the other hand, he was forced to go against his beliefs in order to do that job, that's discrimination and he could chose to leave or sue.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Country if you believe human life is worth saving, then you're not telling someone NOT to get an abortion. You're protecting that human Life. Now if you want to argue it's not a human Life, fine. Let's settle on another definition and when you kill it, let's call it something besides ending an innocent human Life.

There is a reason we have laws against murder. Every Life is human. What else is it if it is not human and alive?

As far as two men (or women) who want to committ to a Monogamous union they can still do that. But again, let's call it something besides Marriage...which by definition is a commitment between a Man and a Woman.

Just as it takes a Man and a Woman to procreate, so too it takes a Man and a Woman to Marry. A man who wants to share that commitment to another Man is free to do so, it's just not Marriage...just like they can't procreate.

Let's call it something else then recognizing that difference. Gay-comingling...or Manisizing...or Lesbolinking...something besides "Marriage".

A husband and a Wife means a Man and a Woman. Just like a boy and a girl. Male/Female.

As it is, has been, and remains through all of nature.

If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. That is your religious freedom. Don’t tell someone else what to do, what to believe in or not believe in. Very simple.

So yeah, you’re wrong. Christians are attempting to push their religious beliefs on others.

 

[atlkvb]

If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. That is your religious freedom. Don’t tell someone else what to do, what to believe in or not believe in. Very simple.

So yeah, you’re wrong. Christians are attempting to push their religious beliefs on others.

Country if you kill another human being, under what Religion are you accused of murder?

Abortion has nothing to do with Religion, and neither does murder. Now, if killing an innocent unborn human baby is NOT murder, then what else is it?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Country if you kill another human being, under what Religion are you accused of murder?

Religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. We have laws in this country against murder.

We don’t live in a theocracy.

 

[atlkvb]

Religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. We have laws in this country against murder.

We don’t live in a theocracy.

Correct country. We do have laws against murder. What Religion is that?

I'll ask you again to define the termination of the Life of an innocent living fetus that's human and alive and growing? What is that once you kill it? What Religion is that?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Correct country. We do have laws against murder. What Religion is that?

I'll ask you again to define the termination of the Life of an innocent living fetus that's human and alive and growing? What is that once you kill it? What Religion is that?

********, man. You don’t understand plain English. It has nothing to do with religion. The laws of the US address murder, not religion. Hell, your religion says you’re not supposed to eat shellfish but yet it is not illegal in the US. Your religion says you’re not supposed to wear clothes made of multiple fabrics yet it is legal in the US

 

[atlkvb]

********, man. You don’t understand plain English. It has nothing to do with religion. The laws of the US address murder, not religion. Hell, your religion says you’re not supposed to eat shellfish but yet it is not illegal in the US. Your religion says you’re not supposed to wear clothes made of multiple fabrics yet it is legal in the US

If you could just answer my question we can proceed. If you can't answer me or won't just say so and I'll say goodnight.

I'm not wasting my time listening to you pontificate when I'm trying to establish some definitions so we can agree what to call ending the life of another innocent human being. It has nothing to do with Religion!

When you kill another human being, you are not charged with violating any Religious doctrine. What is abortion if a baby is not killed before it's aborted? What has that got to do with any Religion?

Will you answer or give me some definition?

 

[atlkvb]

It has nothing to do with religion

You're misunderstanding me. I agree murder laws have nothing to do with Religion. Murder is the taking an innocent human Life. A baby two months before it is born is also an innocent human Life. If you kill it, why is that NOT murder?

 

[dave]

We don’t care. Just don’t force your beliefs on others. Like telling others they must be anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro life, they are not allowed to marry people of the same gender, they must stand at attention and in silence at a public function and listen to your prayers, they must pay for statues of crosses and nativity scenes to be placed in public places on government property - violating the First Amendment.

Interesting statement coming from an atheist who is always telling Christians how they should act and feel

 

[atlkvb]

Interesting statement coming from an atheist who is always telling Christians how they should act and feel

They cannot honestly debate this issue Dave or honestly admit to what they support. They won't even allow a common definition of terms.

Why not?

Because they cannot defend infanticide, so they refuse to define abortion of a living baby 2 months before birth. Yet, they steadfastly support it.

 

[Keyser76]

Evangelicals are the main reason folks turning away from Christianity, religion makes ya stupid anyway.

 

[atlkvb]

Evangelicals are the main reason folks turning away from Christianity, religion makes ya stupid anyway.

Keyser is "stupidity" defined by what one believes or what one doesn't know?

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

Not true at all.

We just want them to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

Tell me, what legal rights are they denied?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Tell me, what legal rights are they denied?

Until recently, marriage, adoption, survivorship benefits, other benefits married couples receive such as health care insurance, excused leave from work to care for a family member, etc.

 

[atlkvb]

Until recently, marriage, adoption, survivorship benefits, other benefits married couples receive such as health care insurance, excused leave from work to care for a family member, etc.

Wrong. No one Gay is denied any of those things. Heterosexual couples are often denied adoption. Just because someone has sex with their same sex partner isn't automatically the best environment for raising a child that was born of a man and a woman. Still many are allowed to adopt.

All lies, all of them.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

All lies, all of them.

You are a complete moron.

 

[atlkvb]

You are a complete moron.

When you are exposed as a fraud and always wrong, name calling is your pacifier.

 

[mule_eer]

Tell me, what legal rights are they denied?

Workplace discrimination against homosexuals is legal many places in the US. It's entirely possible for a same sex couple to marry legally, then be fired from their jobs legally for the that legal act.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

When you are exposed as a fraud and always wrong, name calling is your pacifier.

I just gave you a list of facts, various ways homosexuals were denied rights. Your response was "All lies, all of them."

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Workplace discrimination against homosexuals is legal many places in the US. It's entirely possible for a same sex couple to marry legally, then be fired from their jobs legally for the that legal act.

Can you link me to any cases within the last 5 years where that happened? I’m sure it’s been alleged, just curious if it’s actually been proven to have occurred. I’d add, settlements not being a qualifier.

With that said, I’ve long since not been in alignment with my party on the issues of the gays.

 

[mule_eer]

Can you link me to any cases within the last 5 years where that happened? I’m sure it’s been alleged, just curious if it’s actually been proven to have occurred. I’d add, settlements not being a qualifier.

With that said, I’ve long since not been in alignment with my party on the issues of the gays.

Three of those are going before the Supreme Court. In two of those, the employer gave different reasons, but did the firing immediately after learning of the employee's sexual orientation. The other one was immediately after learning of the sexual orientation (identity in that particular case).

 

[atlkvb]

Workplace discrimination against homosexuals is legal many places in the US. It's entirely possible for a same sex couple to marry legally, then be fired from their jobs legally for the that legal act.

Then they should sue. It's discrimination based on sexual preference which is against the Law.

 

[atlkvb]

I just gave you a list of facts, various ways homosexuals were denied rights. Your response was "All lies, all of them."

I stated gays are denied none of those things you listed. You are wrong again.

 

[mule_eer]

Then they should sue. It's discrimination based on sexual preference which is against the Law.

It isn't explicitly against the law in 28 states. It's open to interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans employment discrimination based on sex. It has not been explicitly decided if that is inclusive of sexual preference or identity, hence the SC has to make that decision.

 

[atlkvb]

It isn't explicitly against the law in 28 states. It's open to interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans employment discrimination based on sex. It has not been explicitly decided if that is inclusive of sexual preference or identity, hence the SC has to make that decision.

Granted. However in those cases where it is discrimination, those discriminated against based on their sexual orientation should sue. I support that.

Federally, it's already statutory law.

 

[mule_eer]

Granted. However in those cases where it is discrimination, those discriminated against based on their sexual orientation should sue. I support that.

Federally, it's already statutory law.

It isn't explicit in federal law. If it were, this case would have ended in the trial court. It was decided against the claimants in trial court. If it were federal law, the trial court decisions would have been for the claimants.

So you claim is an existing federal law. Can you point me to it?

 

[atlkvb]

It isn't explicit in federal law. If it were, this case would have ended in the trial court. It was decided against the claimants in trial court. If it were federal law, the trial court decisions would have been for the claimants.

So you claim is an existing federal law. Can you point me to it?

I can't cite the exact law, but it can be found in most language where discrimination on hiring is specifically enumerated to include race, sex, Religion or sexual orientation. I know our harassment guidelines match our hiring guidines and are defined by Federal anti discrimination law.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Three of those are going before the Supreme Court. In two of those, the employer gave different reasons, but did the firing immediately after learning of the employee's sexual orientation. The other one was immediately after learning of the sexual orientation (identity in that particular case).

Who were the employers? A real company or like Bob’s used tire emporium? Not that it matters, as I’m 100% in favor of providing that protection, I’m just curious.

 

[mule_eer]

Who were the employers? A real company or like Bob’s used tire emporium? Not that it matters, as I’m 100% in favor of providing that protection, I’m just curious.

One was a funeral home, one guy was a sky diving instructor, and the third worked in child welfare in Clayton county, GA. I have no idea how big the companies in the first 2 cases were. They were named in the article I read, but I didn't deep dive into them.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/insid...mination-cases-that-could-change-lgbtq-rights

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

You are a complete moron.

I have had my run-ins with atlkvb but for you, of all people, to call him a moron is totally laughable.

 

[atlkvb]

I have had my run-ins with atlkvb but for you, of all people, to call him a moron is totally laughable.

Don't take it personally Finney....everyone who disagrees with that evil rich Capitalist is not just a "moron" but a "F'vcking Moron"

That's the worst kind of Moron don't 'ya know? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

Country if you believe human life is worth saving, then you're not telling someone NOT to get an abortion. You're protecting that human Life. Now if you want to argue it's not a human Life, fine. Let's settle on another definition and when you kill it, let's call it something besides ending an innocent human Life.

There is a reason we have laws against murder. Every Life is human. What else is it if it is not human and alive?

As far as two men (or women) who want to committ to a Monogamous union they can still do that. But again, let's call it something besides Marriage...which by definition is a commitment between a Man and a Woman.

Just as it takes a Man and a Woman to procreate, so too it takes a Man and a Woman to Marry. A man who wants to share that commitment to another Man is free to do so, it's just not Marriage...just like they can't procreate.

Let's call it something else then recognizing that difference. Gay-comingling...or Manisizing...or Lesbolinking...something besides "Marriage".

A husband and a Wife means a Man and a Woman. Just like a boy and a girl. Male/Female.

As it is, has been, and remains through all of nature.

Why not call it what it is -- a Civil Union.

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

It's not political in the sense of party building, however the "politics" of belief is as rancourous as ordinary political discourse.

You are correct about how folks choose religion to accommodate their own personal beliefs, and that's where it gets political.

If you follow Christ of course he wasn't about Religion, but those who don't follow him use Politics in part to justify their dissent.

Some of those who do follow him also teach/Preach political views or action.

 

[atlkvb]

Some of those who do follow him also teach/Preach political views or action.

True. However you are not exempt from holding political beliefs following Christ, the problem comes when folks use their political beliefs as justification for whatever Christ taught.

Again, he never called out specific policy as much as his teaching was about transforming the way you think and ultimately behave.