Pro-discrimination

[Seeking ET]

I must note that I am pro rights and not religious. This was printed in my local paper in Idaho by the papers news editor himself, and it's so backwardly negative that I wanted to share it.

http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=11637

[Lionheart]

I must note that I am pro rights and not religious. This was printed in my local paper in Idaho by the papers news editor himself, and it's so backwardly negative that I wanted to share it.

http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=11637

Boy oh boy, this ever changing World that we live in. What are they going to do next.

So far if you don't believe in Gay marriage, you are Homophobic. If you don't like our current President, you are a racist. If you want to get your parents into trouble, tell someone in authority that they punished you. If someone says something bad or doesn't agree with you, report them for bullying. Where does it end?

I was going to create a post a couple of weeks ago about the Ancient technology versus current technology and the way it was being used. But I figured it was likely a lost cause.

Nothing is going to change. There's too many powerful people and organizations that take advantage of everything as it is.

The only way to change anything would be by force, as of a change happening to this entire World that we no one could stop, like a Solar Flare that wipes out Electricity, the Internet and everything else. But, that scenario would lead to a 100 years of even worse chaos.

You want to see a "Zombie Apocalypse", then turn the cellphones and all other power units off. Today's generation is built to survive on it and it alone.

[Thread Killer]

I don't necessarily think it is backward. You can't legislate tolerance or understanding. Then we become intolerant of people who are not in the same place, spiritually, as us. What's the difference? Intolerance is intolerance, no? On the other hand, picking and choosing who is to be served in a business could go retrograde, but this is highly unlikely. I also agree to let money do the talking. Through networking, you can show your disapproval on a large scale by taking your money elsewhere. 
We will never, all of us, be on the same page in our development. To examine a parallel, look at the recent debate between Bill Nie and Ken Ham. When you try to beat the "other side" over the head (Bill Nie) with your "rightness", you will provoke an exaggerated reaction. Suddenly, money started flowing in for Ham's creation museum. This pattern has repeated itself time and time again, with the lesson not being learned. A persons ego is so invested in their beliefs of what's right and true. Most of us will not use the opportunity for self examination, but to further entrench our current position.
I don't agree with everything our editor says, but I do think he was being thoughtful and probably more "liberal" than he usually is.

[Astral-Trea]

You know, I was going to make this long post about what I think is right and wrong and why.. But then I thought, for what reason?

I will just say I agree with Lionheart and I think this world has turned into a very very sad one.

Legally speaking, true christianity in general believes that homosexuality is a sin, and they do not agree with gay marriage. If you are a christian and are a business owner, and you base your business ethics on that of your religion (christian business) then you are protected legally by the first amendment from the government trying to force you to go against your religion.

In the case for a photographer who a gay couple wants to hire to photograph their wedding, therefore he is participating it, and he says no based on his religion... He has that right under the constitution and therefore should not be sued successfully, otherwise his actual rights have been violating. I don't think the lawsuit was successful, but the business owner has to spend alot of time and money defending himself and proving that he is protected under the constitution.

Same goes for the case of a bakery owner and a wedding cake although it may lack the participation part in some people's opinion.

Call it discrimination, but comparing it to the 50s when white business owners refused to serve blacks is not even remotely the same. Those business owners did not have any protection from the consitution in that case. And yet, that is what is being done here. The fact that they had to introduce a law to prevent people from being able to sue business owners like this, is the travesty here.

But that is the society that we live in now... Because laws are being changed to appeal to people's unnatural agenda's, laws are now being created to try to specifically protect people who are already protected by existing rights. It isn't about equal rights, it's about some people wanting more rights than already exist.

And yet.. They are winning.