Originally posted by Taijiguy: Man, I just don't get it. There must be a thousand other landscaping businesses. Why would anyone care one bit what the owner of this one thinks?
The thing about civil rights is there must always be a fight to defend them.
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." --Thomas Jefferson to New London Methodists, 1809
"The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801
IP: Logged
05:20 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Think about it, this isn't about the guy not wanting to do business with gays, it's about him openly admitting that he doesn't want to do business with them, and them being pissed because he's honest about his feelings.
The same could be said for not wanting to do buisness with blacks, reds, yellows, women, athests, ANYONE.
What if Safeway did it? What if Hospitals did it? What if Cafe's did it? What if Schools did it? What if Gas stations did it?
What if the Police did it? Whoops, I went to far.
IP: Logged
05:23 PM
Wolfhound Member
Posts: 5317 From: Opelika , Alabama, USA Registered: Oct 1999
Todd, My apologies, Didn't mean to go over your head. Just trying to point out your hypocrisy. I'll try to explain. I was just wondering why your statement didn't apply to the Dixie Chicks?
You said:
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: The point of being an adult is learning take the insensitivity of others in stride and get on with your life. Use it as a lesson to grow from...fine. But revenge is all this was and that sucks. Threatening children with sodomy, threatening murder, restraint of trade, and all other forms of malice is even MORE wrong than the original offence. .
So people will claim gay is immoral but say why and they use the bible to justify discrimination. No wonder Sir Elton Jokn wants organized religion baned.
I think JStricker's perception, IMHO, to be spot on.It was a deliberate attempt to villify somebody who openly stated their beliefs..and these publicity-seekers set them up..BECAUSE of their stated beliefs.Hypocritical in the extreme. They have as much right to be proud in their view of morals, and to state it publicly, on their OWN website,as any Gay Activists who do far worse in Public places, in the form of 'Proud to be Gay' marches. Forcing people to be subjected to their rantings.They are equally proud to NOT be Gay, and advise anybody intending dealing with them of those beliefs. Nick
I would rail against that as strongly as I rail against gay discrimination.... That idea will not fly.
I'd do it for a time to show the bible thumpers a thing about how they porpose treating others like minorities. The whole walk a mile in another mans shoes thing.
Ya know.. he could be raising a closet queen and not even know it. Just imagine little thisiswhereiputmyusername feeling the oddball all his life. No one at home understand him then one day... he commits suicide rather than disapoint his loving family.
What a shame.
Bill you are the biggest as swipe I have ever heard of..
[This message has been edited by isthiswhereiputausername? (edited 11-13-2006).]
Man, I just don't get it. There must be a thousand other landscaping businesses. Why would anyone care one bit what the owner of this one thinks? Think about it, this isn't about the guy not wanting to do business with gays, it's about him openly admitting that he doesn't want to do business with them, and them being pissed because he's honest about his feelings. Why do they care so much what he thinks???? And do they think all the hostility directed at him by their peers is going to make him more receptive to their lifestyle?
These freaks only wanted to get every other gays panties in a tiff.. See how quick they got closet people out cheering them on like Johnny & bill?
[This message has been edited by isthiswhereiputausername? (edited 11-13-2006).]
Originally posted by Phranc: I'd do it for a time to show the bible thumpers a thing about how they porpose treating others like minorities. The whole walk a mile in another mans shoes thing.
I wouldn't.. simply because I have an obligation to maintain. My ajenda is simple. Defend the rights of the people no matter how stronly I feel they don't deserve my blood, sweat and tears. It's not about me, it about US.
"[Oppose] with manly firmness [any] invasions on the rights of the people." --Thomas Jefferson
"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-13-2006).]
Snipxxx P.S. I took no offense to your post, and still hold you in the same regard as always.
I had thought you would be kind enough to read my questions, without being offended.Thanks. I am just very confused over everything going on here, to be honest. Not just you!! I read, and understand your viewpoint in your replies, and although I can't agree with all you said, I also believe you have the right to do express them. .Respect seems to be knocking on the window from the outside in some of the posts here.But, on the whole, it is reasonably levelheaded. if volatile. The thing beyond all my comprehension, is the intolerance being displayed by those who are so vociferous in their demands FOR tolerance. I am not going to continue posting. I guess my attitude has been coloured by events in my life, and therefore could well be construed as biased. In fact, I acknowledge it is. Nick Nick
IP: Logged
05:44 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
...in the form of 'Proud to be Gay' marches. Forcing people to be subjected to their rantings.
Vancouver has a huge gay population and they have their "Gay Pride" parade every year. I don't know how I've managed to escape it year after year (considering that gay people are "forcing people to be subjected to their rantings"), but I've never ever seen the parade.
By the way, I'm not discriminating against them because the truth is, I don't like parades of any sort.
Okay, I have to admit it - I am biased against a certain group. I hate clowns. Always have, always will.
Originally posted by isthiswhereiputausername?: These freaks only wanted to get every other gays panties in a tiff.. See how quick they got closet people out cheering them on like Johnny & bill?
Still bandying about your wild assumptions about me being a homosexual? I can assure you.. it wont work. I'm not a homophobic and your accusations will not alter my way of thinking.
I don't care if you call me gay.. I'm damn proud to be a defender of their rights and stand firmly with them in OUR united struggle against those who want to subvert the rights of the people and turn this country into their own personal sefrighteous "christian" domain.. Don't like it.. feel free to go to Afghanistan.. I here there arent any gays over there.
IP: Logged
05:53 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I guess my attitude has been coloured by events in my life, and therefore could well be construed as biased. In fact, I acknowledge it is.
It is a wise man that can examine from where his opinions spring, and the power expiriences can have over mindsets. Thank you. That shows me a self-exporitory & ever-evolving mind. A rare thing, indeed.
Originally posted by Boondawg: It is a wise man that can examine from where his opinions spring, and the power expiriences can have over mindsets. Thank you. That shows me a self-exporitory & ever-evolving mind. A rare thing, indeed.
You could just use Lurkers quote.
"The more I learn, the more I appreciate the depth and breadth of my ignorance. We are all fools, the wisest of us are aware of it, the rest..." - Lurker
Patrick, I think you are basing certain comments on an assumption, which is that if a person disagrees with something, that it equates to hatred. And that's just not accurate. That's not to say that there aren't those who disagree because of their hatred, but that doesn't make it the rule. My personal motto is "live and let live". You do what you want, I do what I want, and as long as we don't harm each other, so be it. The only people harmed in this story is the company that exercised their free choice to not expose themselves or their employees to people living a lifestyle they disagree with. Was that harmful to the gay couple? Maybe their ego wa bruised, but so what? If they're as proud and tolerant as they expect other people to be, why couldn't they just say, "hey, that's cool. There are other companies that'll do the job. No problem." But no, instead, they launch a full-on attack at this company. Can you or anyone honestly look at the situation and not see just how childish this gay couple behaved? The fact of the matter is, their actions absolutely personify to me the reason I resent so many of these special interest groups, they expect others to be tolerant of them, yet they absolutely extend no tolerance towards those who don't treat them in a way they expect. Respect is not something you can demand of anyone, it has to be earned. And frankly, their actions in this matter don't lead me to show them respect, it leaves me believing they're nothing more than whiney little drama queens. And no, I don't hate gays. But I *DO* very much dislike whiney little drama queens. I feel sorry for any company that WOULD do business with them, they would probably be the clients from hell.
IP: Logged
06:11 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
It's not rocket science. Replace "Blacks" with "homosexual" in his letter. Or "Women". Or "People with red hair".
I have to pause my spree of [one type of] nonsensible gibberish for a moment to point this out:
People are born black, women, or with red hair. People choose to be gay. That's been pointed out a hundred times in this totally useless topic... but this discussion is going in circles anyway. Nobody learns anything from this useless crap, it'll just waste peoples' time reading and writing.
And it keeps comming back to THAT! Damn, EVERYONE HERE IS SMARTER THEN THAT!!!!!
It's not rocket science. Replace "Blacks" with "homosexual" in his letter. Or "Women". Or "People with red hair".
Why don't people get it? If this slides today, tomorrow it could be something YOU'RE doing!
Never happen, right? Ever thought there would come a day when it would be againest the law to fry donuts in grease? It's here.
Ever thought there would come a day when it would be againest the law to eat Pate'? It's here.
So a person is entitled to their opinion, unless it is in disagreement with the lifetsyle/color/creed of a person who has proclaimed themselves a minority? Any chance I could get a complete list of those who are off-limits to any critisism or opposition? Would I be on that list, or is it OK if poeple just say what they want about me? How about if that person is gay/black/Hispanic? Is the list null and void then, or am I required to just sit quietly? Any wiggle-room anywhere in there?
Uhh, pointed out but it's very incorrect. They can 'choose' to be straight the same way you can to be gay. Of course they'd never know this, they won't talk to gays.
Genes, environment, who knows, but I'm going to say the former.
I have to pause my spree of [one type of] nonsensible gibberish for a moment to point this out:
People are born black, women, or with red hair. People choose to be gay. That's been pointed out a hundred times in this totally useless topic... but this discussion is going in circles anyway. Nobody learns anything from this useless crap, it'll just waste peoples' time reading and writing.
Yay.
Can you prove its a choice?Are you gay? Did you chose? Religion is a choice is it ok to discriminate againt christians?
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
Uhh, pointed out but it's very incorrect. They can 'choose' to be straight the same way you can to be gay. Of course they'd never know this, they won't talk to gays.
Genes, environment, who knows, but I'm going to say the former.
Do you speak English? Why don't you speak Japanese or something? It must be in your genes then... or perhaps it's just the way you learned things work through your environment.
Patrick, I think you are basing certain comments on an assumption, which is that if a person disagrees with something, that it equates to hatred.
"The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801
It's fine to have an opinion against a gay lifestyle but when it INJURES, that is where the line is drawn and "hate" / "crime" comes into the picture. Injury without justice will bring about further injury and further the pain.
It's fine to not like gays.. that IS an opinion and anyone can have it BUT it is NOT OKAY to injure someone by refusing service to them simply because they are gay. Thats where opinions injure. Refusal of service because they are gay IS NOT an opinion anymore.. thats an action.
Thats what TJ was saying.. It's okay to have an opinion as long as it does not injure another..
The COMPANY injured another citizen by refusing service. Not the individuals running the COMPANY...... but the PUBLIC COMPANY. The COMPANIES policy is in need of correction and its people might need sensitivity training to help them cope with the world outside of their own little church....I mean work place. Afterall they do deal with the public... You know the little country they live in called AMERICA? home to 300 million others?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-13-2006).]
IP: Logged
06:25 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
"The more I learn, the more I appreciate the depth and breadth of my ignorance. We are all fools, the wisest of us are aware of it, the rest..." - Lurker
Powerful and poingent.
Very much so! There are those, whose world would crumble, if they had to admit that. I am not one of them. I have always tryed to step outside myself and/or twist my mind into seeing things from directions my mind is not used to. From a viewpoint that leaves the "time & expirience built" beliefs of the "comfortable" me behind. Sometimes the "uncomfortable" me yields the most "mold-shattering" insights into the "comfortable" me.
Originally posted by Boondawg: Very much so! There are those, whose world would crumble, if they had to admit that. I am not one of them. I have always tryed to step outside myself and/or twist my mind into seeing things from directions my mind is not used to.
I know Boon... Your empathy is a well honed tool.
quote
From a viewpoint that leaves the "time & expirience built" beliefs of the "comfortable" me behind. Sometimes the "uncomfortable" me yields the most "mold-shattering" insights into the "comfortable" me.
I'll save this one for the weekend. Seems heady and requires the spirit of mother nature to be called forth from the smouldering fire of a pungent weed.
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Originally posted by Taijiguy: So a person is entitled to their opinion, unless it is in disagreement with the lifetsyle/color/creed of a person who has proclaimed themselves a minority? Any chance I could get a complete list of those who are off-limits to any critisism or opposition? Would I be on that list, or is it OK if poeple just say what they want about me? How about if that person is gay/black/Hispanic? Is the list null and void then, or am I required to just sit quietly? Any wiggle-room anywhere in there?
You can say, "I don't like you." You can't say, "I don't like you becouse you are black."
You own an animal. You can work that animal at your will alone. The Bible says an animal has no soul, and therefore not entitled to any of Gods grace or protection. A sin can be created with an animal, but not to an animal. Yet vurtually every Religion encourages respecting the lives of animals. But some humans are reguarded as less then something that has no [soul?
The above is my attempt at the rhetoric of circular logic. I may need to set the bong down for awhile!
IP: Logged
06:49 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." --Thomas Jefferson to New London Methodists, 1809
And yet you persist on my acceptance of a lifestyle which I in good conscience can never accept.
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill: "The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801
And yet you call my opinion hateful and intolerant.
Be careful who you quote, Bill, it can come back to bite you in the butt.
John Stricker
IP: Logged
06:49 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Because someone is (in the eyes of some faiths) living a sinful lifestyle does not equate to them having no soul, Boondawg.
Give up on the analogies, you don't do them well.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
You can say, "I don't like you." You can't say, "I don't like you becouse you are black."
You own an animal. You can work that animal at your will alone. The Bible says an animal has no soul, and therefore not entitled to any of Gods grace or protection. A sin can be created with an animal, but not to an animal. Yet vurtually every Religion encourages respecting the lives of animals. But some humans are reguarded as less then something that has no [soul?
The above is my attempt at the rhetoric of circular logic. I may need to set the bong down for awhile!
IP: Logged
06:51 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Be careful who you quote, Bill, it can come back to bite you in the butt.
John Stricker
Not a chance Jonh... Now PAY ATTENTION
quote
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." --Thomas Jefferson to New London Methodists, 1809
ENTERPRISE of civil authority is the government at large. They have a duty to ensure the civil rights of the people are not violated.
So how are the rights of this BUSINESS being violated? They arent... simple as that.. business don't have CIVIL rights.
Now read this
quote
"The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801
It's fine to have an opinion against a gay lifestyle but when it INJURES, that is where the line is drawn and "hate" / "crime" comes into the picture. Injury without justice will bring about further injury and further the pain.
It's fine to not like gays.. that IS an opinion and anyone can have it BUT it is NOT OKAY to injure someone by refusing service to them simply because they are gay. Thats where opinions injure. Refusal of service because they are gay IS NOT an opinion anymore.. thats an action.
Thats what TJ was saying.. It's okay to have an opinion as long as it does not injure another..
The COMPANY injured another citizen by refusing service. Not the individuals running the COMPANY...... but the PUBLIC COMPANY. The COMPANIES policy is in need of correction and its people might need sensitivity training to help them cope with the world outside of their own little church....I mean work place. Afterall they do deal with the public... You know the little country they live in called AMERICA? home to 300 million others?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-13-2006).]
IP: Logged
07:00 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
You have a CHOICE on how to live your life sexually.
"YOUR LIFE" It's no one elses, and therefore cannot be dictated on the whim of someones personal belief on how they should live it, as long as it does not hurt another.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-13-2006).]
