TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: Missouri passes bill to put religious liberty amendment on ballot

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Lol! Isn't the Trumpster saying "Make America Great Again"?
That means it's not so great.
Better than Canada.

Every single day...

weltschmerz · Guru

Sure, because you say so.

burns07 · Guru

well, color me texan but just don't really give a damn what goes on in canada

WYSIWYG · Guru

Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
- ed11563

______________________________

No.

It's not murder. That doesn't mean it should be allowed though. It should be manslaughter or some other "less than murder, but still responsible for the death" charge.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I don't like laws that exempt public businesses from treating citizens equally. It's a very slippery slope. We may like this one, but what about ones we don't like? If we allow this to stand, then we have no right of justification to complain about ones that go against us if they become enacted based on this precedent.

Our Founding Fathers were very wise to separate Church and State. I think it should remain that way.

I was actually in favor of the first paragraph of the bill:

"
This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the qualified voters of this state, prohibits the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property.
"

Because it specified that it only exempted religious organizations. I do fully support that. Religious organizations should only be required to follow the tenets of their faith.

But when it went on to support public discrimination in general, by businesses that are not religious in nature, I believe they went too far.

weltschmerz · Guru

"This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the qualified voters of this state, prohibits the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property.
"

Because it specified that it only exempted religious organizations. I do fully support that. Religious organizations should only be required to follow the tenets of their faith.

But when it went on to support public discrimination in general, by businesses that are not religious in nature, I believe they went too far."

Yes. A bakery, for instance, is not a religious organization. Neither is a bed and breakfast or the city hall where they issue marriage licences.

ONA RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION'S PROPERTY. Churches always had the right to pick and choose who they would marry.

My church refused to allow my marriage to a Jewish man. Not something to start suing over. Or whining over.

ed11563 · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
- ed11563

______________________________

No.

It's not murder. That doesn't mean it should be allowed though. It should be manslaughter or some other "less than murder, but still responsible for the death" charge.

I was hoping for a response from one of our biblical scholars:

Does choosing to let your child to die qualify as a violation of the Commandment?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
newrepublic.com/article/121187/idahos-christy-perry-defends-followers-christ-religious-exemption

Faith-Healer Parents Who Let Their Child Die Should Go to Jai

In America, 43 of the 50 U.S. states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. If your child has diabetes or a severe infection, and you pray for her instead of giving her insulin or antibiotics, she’ll probably die, but you’re largely off the legal hook. But that immunity doesn’t apply if you injure your child by withholding medical care for nonreligious reasons; for that, you can be prosecuted for neglect, abuse, or even manslaughter. This privileging of religion is dangerous to children—and has killed many of them. In Idaho, for instance, parents are immunized against prosecution for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide when they let their kids die in the name of faith. In fact, parents there can’t be prosecuted for anything if they rely solely on faith healing.

Religious freedoms like this?

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 04:21:15 PM
Ignorant comparison. No one is going to die if they can't get married by a minister or have a cake...

When in doubt, deflect from the actual issue being discussed.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Lol! Isn't the Trumpster saying "Make America Great Again"?
That means it's not so great.

It's not. We have a record number of people on Welfare and the govt dole and food stamps. Obama has run up massive debt. Our trade policies are destroying the middle class. We have lost our moral way on many issues. Need I go on? The liberals have been allowed to run amock and we can see the end results of Liberal La La Land Utopia which is called Detroit. And, we see where we are heading with govt socialism as Europe is collapsing.

But, you can 'LOL" all you want. Blacks are far, far worse under Obama who pretends to be a champion of their lives. The only person he is a champion of is his self centered greedy self.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM
Well, of course you can!
Gays have been a protected class here for 40 years, since 1977.
Time to get out of the Stone Age.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 07:02:00 PM

Why? Because you say so? It is OUR country and we make OUR own laws. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand? Funny how you want to impose all of your views on a country you don't even belong too.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

# Canada So White

e-canada-us-population-by-approximate-us-race-ethnicity-category-2006-pie.png

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
- ed11563

______________________________

No.

It's not murder. That doesn't mean it should be allowed though. It should be manslaughter or some other "less than murder, but still responsible for the death" charge.
I was hoping for a response from one of our biblical scholars:
Does choosing to let your child to die qualify as a violation of the Commandment?

It is not "choosing" to "let them die".

It is relying on your Faith and trusting God.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying.

I firmly believe God has given us the mind and ability to seek out medical help and intervention.

I believe without a doubt He has given men and women the wisdom and intellect and has provided the materials and such to treat pretty much all that ails us.

At the same time, it is still a person's right to seek that help, or not.

Is it murder if you don't seek out medical help?

In my opinion, no.

It is total reliance and putting complete trust in God.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

d-canada-us-population-by-approximate-us-race-ethnicity-category-200-bar.png

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yet you seem to be such an expert on how America should run as if you don't have to take into account our far bigger population, etc. Maybe Trump can pick you to be his VEEP.

ed11563 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
- ed11563

______________________________

No.

It's not murder. That doesn't mean it should be allowed though. It should be manslaughter or some other "less than murder, but still responsible for the death" charge.
I was hoping for a response from one of our biblical scholars:
Does choosing to let your child to die qualify as a violation of the Commandment?

It is not "choosing" to "let them die".
It is relying on your Faith and trusting God.
Don't misunderstand what I am saying.
I firmly believe God has given us the mind and ability to seek out medical help and intervention.
I believe without a doubt He has given men and women the wisdom and intellect and has provided the materials and such to treat pretty much all that ails us.
At the same time, it is still a person's right to seek that help, or not.
Is it murder if you don't seek out medical help?
In my opinion, no.
It is total reliance and putting complete trust in God.

Thanks Lily,

Does it matter that someone is making that choice for a small child, like this one who died because of it,

instead of choosing this for themselves?

Ed

-- Edited by ed11563 on Thursday 10th of March 2016 08:59:03 PM

WYSIWYG · Guru

I was hoping for a response from one of our biblical scholars:

Does choosing to let your child to die qualify as a violation of the Commandment?
- ed11563

__________________________________

I am by no means a Biblical Scholar, but my answer is that it's not a violation of "Thou shalt not kill", but it is a violation of the principles of love and protecting innocents that is one of the greatest parts of God's overall wish for us.

God gives us the doctors and scientists that create the medicines and procedures that save lives. To fail to use them by choice isn't killing, but it is failing to love and protect.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
- ed11563

______________________________

No.

It's not murder. That doesn't mean it should be allowed though. It should be manslaughter or some other "less than murder, but still responsible for the death" charge.
I was hoping for a response from one of our biblical scholars:
Does choosing to let your child to die qualify as a violation of the Commandment?

It is not "choosing" to "let them die".
It is relying on your Faith and trusting God.
Don't misunderstand what I am saying.
I firmly believe God has given us the mind and ability to seek out medical help and intervention.
I believe without a doubt He has given men and women the wisdom and intellect and has provided the materials and such to treat pretty much all that ails us.
At the same time, it is still a person's right to seek that help, or not.
Is it murder if you don't seek out medical help?
In my opinion, no.
It is total reliance and putting complete trust in God.

Thanks Lily,
Does it matter that someone is making that choice for a small child, like this one who died because of it,
instead of choosing this for themselves?
Ed

-- Edited by ed11563 on Thursday 10th of March 2016 08:59:03 PM

No.

Same reason.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM
Well, of course you can!
Gays have been a protected class here for 40 years, since 1977.
Time to get out of the Stone Age.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 07:02:00 PM
Neh...we are doing just fine...the most powerful country on Earth. Thats pretty impressive. Just sayin...

Do you have any idea what YEAR this is? Denied housing? Employment?

How shameful.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Lol! Isn't the Trumpster saying "Make America Great Again"?
That means it's not so great.
Better than Canada.

Oh good, here come the insults.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

burns07 wrote:

well, color me texan but just don't really give a damn what goes on in canada

Because the rest of the world doesn't matter as long as you can sell cars...

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM
Well, of course you can!
Gays have been a protected class here for 40 years, since 1977.
Time to get out of the Stone Age.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 07:02:00 PM
Neh...we are doing just fine...the most powerful country on Earth. Thats pretty impressive. Just sayin...
Do you have any idea what YEAR this is? Denied housing? Employment?
How shameful.
flan

Hey, when you make stupid choices, you suffer the consequences...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan

That's your (incorrect) opinion.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.

There, there...

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

People should not be discriminated against for simply being gay.

However, it is not discrimination to refuse to participate in the celebration in a sinful EVENT, if religious freedom is to mean anything in this country. People have the right to refuse service for morally objectionable things.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
People should not be discriminated against for simply being gay.

However, it is not discrimination to refuse to participate in the celebration in a sinful EVENT, if religious freedom is to mean anything in this country. People have the right to refuse service for morally objectionable things.

So how do you draw that line? What if a restaurant doesn't want to serve a gay couple because they are sinning by being gay?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People should not be discriminated against for simply being gay.

However, it is not discrimination to refuse to participate in the celebration in a sinful EVENT, if religious freedom is to mean anything in this country. People have the right to refuse service for morally objectionable things.
So how do you draw that line? What if a restaurant doesn't want to serve a gay couple because they are sinning by being gay?

You are not sinning by BEING gay.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People should not be discriminated against for simply being gay.

However, it is not discrimination to refuse to participate in the celebration in a sinful EVENT, if religious freedom is to mean anything in this country. People have the right to refuse service for morally objectionable things.
So how do you draw that line? What if a restaurant doesn't want to serve a gay couple because they are sinning by being gay?
You are not sinning by BEING gay.

But their are people who think you are. What if a church decided it was and then said it was against their religion to serve gays.. I just think these laws open up all sorts of craziness.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

And that's where many of us disagree.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

And that's where many of us disagree.
flan

So you would have no problem catering a KKK rally? Making the food, setting it up, and serving the attendees?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

And that's where many of us disagree.
flan

So you would have no problem catering a KKK rally? Making the food, setting it up, and serving the attendees?

I would have a major problem with it. But legally they have the right to have a rally and if I have a public business I have to serve them. Sucks, but that's part of having a public business.

Ohfour · Hooker

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

And that's where many of us disagree.
flan

So you would have no problem catering a KKK rally? Making the food, setting it up, and serving the attendees?

I would have a major problem with it. But legally they have the right to have a rally and if I have a public business I have to serve them. Sucks, but that's part of having a public business.

I respect your position on that. You are one of the few that think that way though...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

But that's the thing.

You have a RIGHT to refuse service.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And a private business is not a public business.

Public business has to do with government.

Police, court house, DMV. That is public businesses.

Private business is catering, bakery, seamstress. Those are private businesses, that while they may provide a service to the public, are not publicly owned.

There has been a blurring of the two and we need to separate the two again.

Tinydancer · Guru

If you can refuse service to someone not wearing shoes or a shirt you can refuse anyone.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It is a sin to have any type of sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Bible says straight out it is a sin and an abomination for homosexual sex at all, even if "married".

So yes, a Biblical church will preach that and hold that belief.

But there is a difference in a couple picking up a dozen cupcakes and a couple wanting a cake made and delivered and set up.

And that's where many of us disagree.
flan

So you would have no problem catering a KKK rally? Making the food, setting it up, and serving the attendees?

I would have a major problem with it. But legally they have the right to have a rally and if I have a public business I have to serve them. Sucks, but that's part of having a public business.

NO, actually, legally you do NOT have to. Owning a business doesn't make you a slave to the public.

weltschmerz · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
If you can refuse service to someone not wearing shoes or a shirt you can refuse anyone.

You can put on a shirt or shoes, ergo you can stop being shirtless or shoeless. How do you stop being gay?

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.

How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
If you can refuse service to someone not wearing shoes or a shirt you can refuse anyone.
You can put on a shirt or shoes, ergo you can stop being shirtless or shoeless. How do you stop being gay?

Lots of people have stopped being gay.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.
How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?

As stated before, it's the act, not the urges that make you a sinner. One can be attracted to the opposite sex (which is a mental disorder) and still not act on it. People control unnatural urges all the time. It's a big part of what makes us human...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
If you can refuse service to someone not wearing shoes or a shirt you can refuse anyone.
You can put on a shirt or shoes, ergo you can stop being shirtless or shoeless. How do you stop being gay?
Lots of people have stopped being gay.

There you go, welts...Easy peasy.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
If you can refuse service to someone not wearing shoes or a shirt you can refuse anyone.
You can put on a shirt or shoes, ergo you can stop being shirtless or shoeless. How do you stop being gay?
Lots of people have stopped being gay.
There you go, welts...Easy peasy.
flan

No one said it was easy. Self control is hard sometimes...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.
How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?

You don't have to choose anything but not to engage in the sinful behavior. People have to deny their lusts all the time.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Your BEHAVIOR is a choice. You can be heterosexual but you CHOOSE when to act on that. Two completely different things.

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.
How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?
As stated before, it's the act, not the urges that make you a sinner. One can be attracted to the opposite sex (which is a mental disorder) and still not act on it. People control unnatural urges all the time. It's a big part of what makes us human...

Answer the queation, please instead of going off on a tangebt.

How did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.
How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?
As stated before, it's the act, not the urges that make you a sinner. One can be attracted to the opposite sex (which is a mental disorder) and still not act on it. People control unnatural urges all the time. It's a big part of what makes us human...
Answer the queation, please instead of going off on a tangebt.
How did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Orientation is not a choice. People are attracted to all kinds of disgusting behavior. Acting on it is the choice.

weltschmerz · Guru

"Canada So White"

What on earth were you trying to imply with all those charts and graphs, LGS?

Are you blaming America's ills on people who aren't very white?

Laying America's problems at the feet of those who inherently have more melanin in their skin?

What was that all about?

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Hey, it's NOT a choice.

Unless you think you can CHOOSE to be a Lesbian?

flan
That's your (incorrect) opinion.
How did you "choose" to be heterosexual"?
As stated before, it's the act, not the urges that make you a sinner. One can be attracted to the opposite sex (which is a mental disorder) and still not act on it. People control unnatural urges all the time. It's a big part of what makes us human...
Answer the queation, please instead of going off on a tangebt.
How did you choose to be a heterosexual?
Orientation is not a choice. People are attracted to all kinds of disgusting behavior. Acting on it is the choice.

That's not what you said before. Your reply to "it's not a choice" was "That would be your incorrect opinion".

If it's a choice, how did you choose to be heterosexual?

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Friday 11th of March 2016 05:31:30 PM