Jump to content

Travel Ban


Recommended Posts

:rofl: So the sign on the door "men"  and "women" is what prevents predators from going into the bathroom to prey on people? :rofl:  And I thought it was the crazy liberals who came up with wacky ideas!  :rofl: :rofl::rofl:

 

Folks, people go to bathrooms to 1) take a crap.  2) take a pee.  3) both.   It's 2017...we really gotta go to the "if you have a pee pee you can't be sitting in the stall next to a person who doesn't have a pee pee".  Please, and I thought you guys were saying it was the Liberals need safe-spaces.

If you're worried about predators, they usually do other things like set up cameras, stalk people...that sort of thing.  The ones who go into bathrooms, STILL CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW ANYWAYS.  Especially a women's bathroom.  A really savvy predator could just go sit in a stall and wait and no one would be the wiser.

You guys are inventing a bogie man that simply doesn't exist.  Predators aren't changing their sex to prey on people.  Hence the reason I called it a "Red-Harring".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, skip-zip said:

And that's only a small sampling of the proof that this "inclusiveness" is opening the door to predators.  And I'm surprised that even mainstream media sources have been compelled to report these incidences.  

 

Here's a few more:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/58525-frightening-incidents-begin-in-target-s-transgender-friendly-bathrooms

 

 

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

What a fishing expedition!  The headline outright lies it says "transgender bathroom" and then the body reads "Target changing room".  Those are two separate things.

Target has always had unisex changing rooms, as a frequent target shopper I know this.  Not to mention many other stores do to: Old Navy, Urban Outfitters, H&M, Macy's, Walmart, and many...many more...and they did so YEARS before the new rash of legislation afraid of shadows.  Wait...and this is the one instance you have?

Like you are grasping at straws, as is that article you posted, to defend this red-haring BS.  You know, men can go into bathrooms right now, sit in a stall, and do the SAME DAMN THING right now.  Predators are going to prey.  And guess what, women can be predators too.

Instead of doing the sensible thing, and educating people to be aware of their surroundings (how the guy in the Target was caught), we're going to pass snowflake inspired laws to allow police to check people's IDs before they enter bathrooms, and kick out people who aren't dressed "woman like" enough for the police officer...because you know police don't have anything better to do. 'MURICA!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

As an aside I do actually agree that men should use men bathrooms and women should use women restroom. I just don't understand the logic that a place would refuse to make a cake for a gay couple because they are sinners, but will make one for someone going on their 4th marriage.

 

I'll respond to this part of your post, and provide some clarification.  

 

If we are talking about the same case, it's a Gay Wedding Cake that they wanted a Baker to make and decorate, themed for 2 guys marrying each other.  And the owner was a Christian who was against Gay Marriage.  It's not about hating Gay people.  It's not about Gay people being "sinners" (EVERYONE is a sinner).   And it's not about refusing to sell the items in his store to Gay people.  

 

To add, if you know any of the details of the case, you'd find that the Bakery actually stopped making Wedding Cakes altogether to avoid having to deal with the issue.  

 

Again, just go down the street and buy a cake from a business that wants your business. That's what all of us do.  Instead, they contacted the Civil Rights Commission, and the ACLU eventually got involved.  We all know what happens at that point.  

 

Oh, and by the way, I 100% agree with the first line in your post above.  :D

 

Edited by skip-zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

If we are talking about the same case, it's a Gay Wedding Cake that they wanted a Baker to make and decorate, themed for 2 guys marrying each other.  And the owner was a Christian who was against Gay Marriage.  It's not about hating Gay people.  It's not about Gay people being "sinners" (EVERYONE is a sinner).   And it's not about refusing to sell the items in his store to Gay people.  

 

To add, if you know any of the details of the case, you'd find that the Bakery actually stopped making Wedding Cakes altogether to avoid having to deal with the issue. 

 

 

Skip read the articles.  The type of legislation that has been passed or floated by those states INCLUDE legislation that would ALLOW shop owners to deny the service to gay people BECAUSE of sincerely held religious beliefs.  You're scenario outline here, doesn't match that legislation at all...because your case here is a response to not having legislation to explicitly protect.  These states in question are giving them the legal means to not have to avoid the issue and continue selling cakes.

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.  Yeah, if you have a problem selling cakes to gay people don't sell cakes!  I don't have a problem with that.  I have a problem with states passing laws that say it is LEGALLY ALRIGHT to not sell the cake to a person BECAUSE they are gay, and it violates your sincerely held belief.  Which is what Alabama, Tennessee, Texas have all either passed or introduced, and Indiana famously failed at doing.

Edited by Balsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

@Balsy :bow:

 

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

Oh don't forget the part in Leviticus where it talks about eating shellfish is an abomination:

Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Or the part where women on their periods are unclearn, and anything they touch also becomes unclean... Leviticus 15: 19.  

 

Guess we should shun them and not sell them anything either during that time.

Edited by Balsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balsy, I wasn't referring to the pending legislation at all in that post.  I was only stating the circumstances in that particular case in Oregon, to clarify someone else's posts about it.  

 

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

I have a problem with states passing laws that say it is LEGALLY ALRIGHT to not sell the cake to a person BECAUSE they are gay, and it violates your sincerely held belief.

 

State legislators are paid a yearly salary to make laws. That's why we send them there.  They make tons of them.  And if they had to use some of that time to officially vote to demonstrate that their state protects the rights of business owners to make those decisions, I'm all for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, skip-zip said:

 

I'll respond to this part of your post, and provide some clarification.  

 

If we are talking about the same case, it's a Gay Wedding Cake that they wanted a Baker to make and decorate, themed for 2 guys marrying each other.  And the owner was a Christian who was against Gay Marriage.  It's not about hating Gay people.  It's not about Gay people being "sinners" (EVERYONE is a sinner).   And it's not about refusing to sell the items in his store to Gay people.  

 

To add, if you know any of the details of the case, you'd find that the Bakery actually stopped making Wedding Cakes altogether to avoid having to deal with the issue.  

 

Again, just go down the street and buy a cake from a business that wants your business. That's what all of us do.  Instead, they contacted the Civil Rights Commission, and the ACLU eventually got involved.  We all know what happens at that point.  

 

Oh, and by the way, I 100% agree with the first line in your post above.  :D

 

Why is he against gay marriage marriage, but has no problem with people getting married a second or third time? What makes gay marriage so bad, but remarriage not? "You shall not commit adultery" is one of the 10 commandments. Luke 16:18 states remarrying is committing adultery.

 

At one point in time getting divorced and remarrying was viewed a shameful act. Eventually people wised up and realized that was dumb and now it's a very common occurrence. The same will happen with gay marriage because each new generation it more tolerant than their parents. Your generation was more accepting than your parents and my generation is more accepting than yours. People like Glynn Wolfe, who was married 29 times, do more to destroy the meaningfulness of marriage than 2 gay people.

 

I just used it as an example. There are plenty of other examples. The restaurant in Texas, the pizza parlor in Indiana, now the adoption agencies in Alabama, etc...

 

"Again, just go down the street and buy a cake from a business that wants your business. That's what all of us do.  Instead, they contacted the Civil Rights Commission, and the ACLU eventually got involved.  We all know what happens at that point."

 

Based off that statement are you okay if we back to the days of businesses refusing service based off skin color or nationality too? My problem is people use religion as an excuse to discriminate. They pick and choose parts of the bible to follow that conveniently fit their lifestyle than turn a blind eye to the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

My problem is people use religion as an excuse to discriminate. 

 

So, how exactly should we determine if actions are legitimately a result of their religious beliefs ?

 

I think you know where the problem exists by my previous posts.  Today's liberals/progressives (or whatever) are simply trying to exercise their determined social agenda by demanding/protesting that certain things be given rights and protections, and everything else shall be labeled "discrimination", and cast aside as "BS".  Our country doesn't work that way.   I think some of the recent elections where a Prez, Senate, House, and an overwhelming majority of the Governorships have swung Conservative again might be an indication that we're turning back to an era of sensibility.  And if you don't like it, you have an opportunity to vote again in the next election.  

 

I'm 100% against discriminating against someone because of the inherent color of their skin.  And I'm appalled whenever I hear a sick news story about someone being beaten up, etc., just because they decide to be in a Gay relationship (as I said earlier, I already have good friends and close relatives who do just that). However, I'm against allowing Gays to enter into the sacrament of Marriage.  Sorry, that doesn't earn me the "you hate Gay people" label (see 2nd line of this paragraph).  And I'm even more adamantly against granting someone "rights" as a woman when they are actually a man, especially when it disrupts the logical order of the rest of our society, and the safety of women/children.   

 

Like I said earlier, the latest version of the Liberal mentality now even labels people who've opposed Obama over the last 8 years "a racist".  It has sadly helped cause the words "racism" and "discrimination" to lose their true meaning.  It's gone WAY too far.  It's time to bring back common sense.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

So, how exactly should we determine if actions are legitimately a result of their religious beliefs ?

 

I think you know where the problem exists by my previous posts.  Today's liberals/progressives (or whatever) are simply trying to exercise their determined social agenda by demanding/protesting that certain things be given rights and protections, and everything else shall be labeled "discrimination", and cast aside as "BS".  Our country doesn't work that way.   I think some of the recent elections where a Prez, Senate, House, and an overwhelming majority of the Governorships have swung Conservative again might be an indication that we're turning back to an era of sensibility.  And if you don't like it, you have an opportunity to vote again in the next election.  

 

I'm 100% against discriminating against someone because of the inherent color of their skin.  And I'm appalled whenever I hear a sick news story about someone being beaten up, etc., just because they decide to be in a Gay relationship (as I said earlier, I already have good friends and close relatives who do just that). However, I'm against allowing Gays to enter into the sacrament of Marriage.  Sorry, that doesn't earn me the "you hate Gay people" label (see 2nd line of this paragraph).  And I'm even more adamantly against granting someone "rights" as a woman when they are actually a man, especially when it disrupts the logical order of the rest of our society, and the safety of women/children.   

 

Like I said earlier, the latest version of the Liberal mentality now even labels people who've opposed Obama over the last 8 years "a racist".  It has sadly helped cause the words "racism" and "discrimination" to lose their true meaning.  It's gone WAY too far.  It's time to bring back common sense.  

 

 

 

Skip, laws are being written to allow for business owners to discriminate against gays on the basis of expressing religious beliefs.If they are invoking that right that means they are saying they are doing it because of religion. That's how I know. In the case of the cake that was outside of one of those states and you said the guy closed shop. I can live with that outcome.

 

Let me prefix this by saying I'm a moderate just making an observation. You say the country is swinging conservative, but the popular vote still favored the blue party. Not saying that means the democrats should have won the election as that's not how the election system operates, but it does tell me we have more liberals living in this country than we do conservatives. That's a fact. As the older generation continues to die off and millennials become the voting majority you'll see the conservative party loosen up on certain social issues to avoid losing votes.

 

I have no problem with someone not being in favor of gay marriage. What I have a problem with is someone telling them they can't eat in their restaurant solely because they are gay or that they can't adopt a kid because they are gay.

 

That's an over generalization. That's like saying all liberals are whiny crybaby snowflakes. There are bad apples on both sides. The people who didn't like Obama because of his issues aren't racists. The conservatives who were going around posting pictures of a noose around his neck clearly were. Unfortunately there is too much animosity between the two sides to ever come to agreements in the middle.Its a big reason why I wish they would do away with the 2 party system all together. Let people pick and choose issues that they are important. Both parties have some good things and bad things about them.

 

 

 

 

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, skip-zip said:

Balsy, I wasn't referring to the pending legislation at all in that post.  I was only stating the circumstances in that particular case in Oregon, to clarify someone else's posts about it.  

 

 

State legislators are paid a yearly salary to make laws. That's why we send them there.  They make tons of them.  And if they had to use some of that time to officially vote to demonstrate that their state protects the rights of business owners to make those decisions, I'm all for it.  

 

And I'm not.  Because business owners shouldn't have that right.  If you're operating in the public sphere, and offer a product, your product should be available to all regardless of Race, Sex, Gender Identity, or whatever it is you do in your personal life.  Your have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but you do not have the right to impose your beliefs onto others.  Owning a business, where then you can impose your beliefs on the public through your actions in the public, included.  No-one gives a rat's ass about your personal beliefs.  If you don't want to serve all people, than don't serve any people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, skip-zip said:

So, how exactly should we determine if actions are legitimately a result of their religious beliefs ?

 

We don't have to.  It doesn't matter.  Your rights stop when they impede upon the rights of others.  Your right to swing your arms stops just before my nose.

If you hold a religious belief, that's find.  If your religious belief leads you to enacting laws that impact me, or business practices that impact me, or anyone, you don't have that right.  Sorry.  Don't like it, there's fundamentalist countries out there that practice one religion you can move to.  This country, however, was founded as a secular nation with a separation between church and state (to protect religions from other religions...like the Church of England being connected to government etc.).  
 

I disagree with you that being gay is a choice, because it's not backed by science.  Studies on gay populations hints to a complex codominant sex-linked recessive trait (appearing more in males...heterozygous females showing "bi" characteristics considerably higher than males etc...)  

But even if it were a choice, religion is also a choice.  Does that mean a store owner has the right to deny service to a non-christian because it's their sincerely held religious belief?  But it's a choice isn't it?  Oh wait...we actually have a law preventing that?  But I thought it was a choice...and we can discrinate against people by the choices they make...

The accrobatics you guys have to do to justify this asinine horse crap public policy is just sad.  We should just not discriminate against people period.  Especially in things that aren't our business.  If you have sincerely held religious beliefs, that's fine.  But you're sincrely held religious beliefs stop when they potentially interfere with other people.

If you don't like that, don't live in America.  Because that's what FREEDOM is.  Freedom to not give a rat's ass about your beliefs, or be inconvenienced or impeded by them.  I won't impede on your right to hold them, so long as you're not impeding on the rest of us.

Edited by Balsy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Not disputing the election results. Trump won fair and square. Just stating there are still more liberals in this country than there are conservatives. Stating otherwise is wrong.

 

Your chart is outdated.  Here's the final official chart:

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAw2AAAAJDQ5MjU2Yzc0LThmYmItNGUzNS04Y2YyLTgwMzQ3OTE3NDg3YQ.png

 

4 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

 

 

And your point of posting that image Hilltopper?  Just because you won an election doesn't justify discrimination (which was the point of this discussion).

Trump could have won the popular vote...hell he could have won the popular vote by 60 million!  And it still Doesn't justify discrimination against gay people.

 

But if you want to breakdown Millenials (which Kreed and I have been talking about being more progressive) Here it is:

18-24-vote-exit-polls-2016.png

 

Gee I wonder which way young people lean...

 

1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2017 at 9:21 AM, skip-zip said:

I often wish that many of the millennials had not been spoon-fed by their parents, and would have learned that you can't just insist that everything you don't like should be changed.  Even something as straightforward and certain as the official results of elections produces outrage.  That's how your generation was raised.  Everything you don't like is "BS" (see above), because you decided that it is because you want things to be some other way.  Like I've said to you a few times already, people start to "get it" more as they get older and experience more of life.     

 

You clearly don't understand Millenials at all Skip.  You act as if we're a bunch of idiots, when we're the most educated generation in American history.  We came of age in one of the worst economic downturns since the great depression, which happened on your, watch because you guys failed to maintain the systems you yourself benefitted from.  

You're right we're pissed off.  We're pissed off that you got to benefit from the hard work of your parents, and instead of you opening doors for us (as the generations before you had done) you slammed them and made them harder us to open.  We were told when we grew up that hard work pays off.  Only to find out that we work our asses off, only to find that it doesn't pay off.  We were told growing up that systems work, and loyalty matters.  Only to find our parents getting screwed for their loyalty as their jobs are shipped overseas, and the systems around us stripped and dismantled instead of maintained by your generation of greed and excess.  We were raised believing that if you work hard you can go to college, and if you work hard in college, you can make a decent living...only to find that college is almost financially impossible to achieve without accepting an absurd amount of debt (skyrocketting compared to what you, our parents and grandparents paid to attend), to graduate underemployed and undervalued because of the economy you guys set fire to.  You're damn right we're pissed off.  

You're damn right we want things different, we're tired of being the generation who works our asses off and are continually screwed over.  And we're going to work like hell to make them the way we want, we just gotta wait for you guys to get the hell out of the way.  Healthcare should be affordable.  People who work full-time jobs shouldn't need to find 2nd and 3rd jobs just to scrape by.  We shouldn't balance the budgets on making cuts to our grandparents and parents pensions, that they worked their asses off for, cuts in social security, which our parents and grandparents worked their asses to maintain, and the poor.  And a lot of other things.

I think it's absurd that you can even suggest that as we enter the "real world" and start doing "real world stuff" we'll become more conservative.  No.  We've been told crap like that our entire lives, and have found it to be complete BS.

Outrage is the only way change happens.  Thank goodness the founding fathers didn't have your approach to the world or we'd still be printing the queen on our money.

And you guys wonder why millenials don't give a Rat's ass about coming to games.  SMH.  It's because we're tired of this crap.  We've been sold a bill of bad goods, and are criticized for telling the emperor he isn't wearing any clothes.   

Edited by Balsy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Not disputing the election results. Trump won fair and square. Just stating there are still more liberals in this country than there are conservatives. Stating otherwise is wrong.

 

110916-Popular-Vote-2016.02.jpg

I think there are slightly more than 125,432,538 people in the U.S.  Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

And they didn't bother to show up and vote for TRUMP!  Sorry Keener, stupid response dude.  Kreed's arguement > yours.

I'm not making any argument for any side of this bullshit pissing contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Brilliant response Keener.  Brilliant.

Not exactly sure why you are attacking me when other people are arguing with you.  I made one smart ass response to this inane conversation.  An accurate one at that.  Maybe you had a bad day.  I can cut you some slack.  Please just don't call another one of my posts stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, K92 said:

Not exactly sure why you are attacking me when other people are arguing with you.  I made one smart ass response to this inane conversation.  An accurate one at that.  Maybe you had a bad day.  I can cut you some slack.  Please just don't call another one of my posts stupid.

 

I don't mean to attack you Keener, my bad.  But the smart ass comment (which I love that honestly, cause I'm quite the smart ass myself) though accurate, came across as underselling the results of the popular vote, which it doesn't, and I took it in the context of who posted it (kreed) and the direction of the conversation.

My bad.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

I don't mean to attack you Keener, my bad.  But the smart ass comment (which I love that honestly, cause I'm quite the smart ass myself) though accurate, came across as underselling the results of the popular vote, which it doesn't, and I took it in the context of who posted it (kreed) and the direction of the conversation.

My bad.  :D

It's all good.  I really wasn't feeling myself last night but then I ate a Snickers and everything was back to normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...