seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
You seem confused. People are protected in law from discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexuality. Racism and bigotry are not protected by law.
That’s why it’s illegal for a business to refuse a mixed race couple.
But not illegal for a business to refuse a racist.
Obviously. For crying out loud.
Control freaks
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Let me get this straight, you believe businesses should be allowed to refuse mixed race couples? Really? You are aware this is illegal? I don’t think even the BNP support such a policy these days.
You complain it would mean that people who don’t like gay marriage would need to make gay wedding cakes. So what? And people who don’t like black people need to serve black people too. Diddums. Get over it.
The polling shows only 14% of Americans support the “right” to refuse gay customers. I’d say that’s a minority, and out of touch.
But perhaps not surprising since JWs are the most homophobic religious group polled and that’s our background.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
What about people in business who oppose mixed race marriages? Should they be allowed to refuse to make cakes for mixed race couples? If it’s against their “beliefs”?
Thank goodness such prejudice is supported by a vanishingly small segment of the population now - only 14% support prejudice against 72% on the side of customers doing nothing more offensive than getting married.
Amazing how out of touch this forum is.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker-poll/most-americans-oppose-businesses-refusing-to-serve-gay-people-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1J02WN
New research shows nearly 5% of people now identify as gay, rising to 8% among millennials - refutation of the nonsense on this forum a few months ago about gay population be “exaggerated” and only 2% or some such rubbish.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/23/same-sex-marriage-poll-americans/638587002/
is there a new blood form to fill out?
maybe it's been mentioned here and i've missed it but when they were chasing me with the gdpr, they also mentioned they wanted to me to fill out a new blood directive.
not that they'll be chasing me for much longer ;).
I’m glad to see his videos back up, but I don’t find Mark terribly lucid or analytical. I’d hold judgment on whether this form represents anything new.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Celebrating a wedding is not offensive. If a business owner thinks otherwise and wants to discriminate on the basis of his beliefs then he’s the one who’s got a problem. He can have those beliefs all he wants but he should not be allowed to use a business to project that prejudice in public. Why? Because it’s rightly against the law to discriminate in a public setting on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. You can’t refuse a service because someone is black and you can’t refuse a service because someone is gay. It’s really incredibly simple.
People comparing a wedding cake to asking someone to collaborate in making something offensive need to have a talk with themselves. It’s a wedding cake. Get a grip.
This forum may be a bastion for prejudiced views (down to 17%, quite a minority) but thank goodness society is headed is a completely different direction. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
has anyone else noticed that in the wt study articles the main point they want you to remember is always somewhere around paragraph 11-14?
it's like a formula.
intro and overview paragraphs 1-4. basic wt stuff 5-8 (not controversial).
Let me get straight to the point here. Yes you are correct. This is a true observation you have made.
after a bit of a kerfuffle over a procedural matter, my university has awarded me a degree.
(the procedural problem was caused by my independent selection of what i wanted to study).
award : bachelor of arts.
Those look like some very interesting topics you covered.
well, i offered in one of his threads to have him on the show and posters seemed excited at the possibility and we got it done so now you can hear from the man himself on the newest episode of "shunned".
one of our very own stepped up to tell his story, well, aside from myself of course.
it was great getting to actually speak with him.. this is my first international interview for the podcast.
Is he famous? And where is he emperor of?
