There's too many hate for Christians around the World

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

What part of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not getting through? Who cares if you refused because he is gay, or ugly, or fat, or smelly, or because he reminds you of your ex's new squeeze.  It doesn't matter. Whatever the reason, we reserve the right to refuse service. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution. Don't like it? Tell your friends and go next door.

You're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the thirteenth amendment, and the first amendment doesn't apply.

 

In Common Law countries, including the USA, your right to freedom STOPS when that right starts to impact the rights of others. The guaranteed freedom of religion means that you can practice your religion without fear of discrimination privately and publicly - but the moment that religion forces you to "ban the gays" from your store, your rights end.

 

As for the Thirteenth? Forced servitude is different from you refusing the serve a customer for no legitimate reason (Legitimate reasons include: The customer is aggressive/threatening/breaking the law/hurting you/abusing or harassing your employees, etc).

 

Forced Servitude would be like you decide you want to go home early, so you close up shop - and then the government or someone sues you because you were closed for the afternoon.

 

The Thirteenth amendment protects your right to close the shop early for whatever non-discriminatory reason (Eg: You're feeling sick, business is slow, you're tired, you decide to start vacation early) - and it also protects your right to set your own hours. It doesn't give you a magical "fuck you" card to gays or whatever.

[ace_cheaply]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

This is working out of a false premise from the get go: that society in general can spontaneously change a paradigm without resistence. You think that in Saudi Arabia, a capitalist country mind you, there's gonna be any kind of backlash against business owners opposing homosexuality when it's an actual crime to be homosexua?

 

How is the market ever going to change that paradigm at all if the entire society basically refuses to acknowledge the rights of certain citizens?

 

Why do you think we had a civil rights movement? Do you think that the free market decided "Racism is not cool anymore everyone should stop selling to racists" No we had to force people who disagreed since the majority decided "Enough of this bigotry" it had nothing to do with the free market.

 

 

 

 

False equivalence with Saudi Arabia, completely different culture that believes in Sharia Law, and that women aren't allowed to have drivers license and are the property of men. 

 

The market cannot overcome the restrictions on it, which dictate that they must discriminate. That isn't a free market

 

It's funny you mention the Civil rights act...which was passed mostly by what?  Oh, yeah, republicans. But on to the argument, the social pressure before the 60's was completely the opposite to the point where business that didn't discriminate were shunned, sanctioned, or otherwise adversely affected. The majority of the population was white, so ignoring that constituency was a quick way to be out of business. Market dictated that discrimination was more profitable, so business did so. Here in 2016, the pressure is the exact opposite, and therefore market forces would dictate that discrimination is now no longer the most profitable path.  In fact, business that do discriminate would be quickly shunned, and exposed in the same way non discriminatory businesses where before the 60's.  Yes, it is good that those changes happened, andI think the culture has changed significantly for the better.

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

False equivalence with Saudi Arabia, completely different culture that believes in Sharia Law, and that women aren't allowed to have drivers license and are the property of men. changed significantly for the better.

And at one point women and black people were not even considered citizens, here in the west. We literally fought motherfucking wars to change those paradigms.

 

But oh no it was the free market! 

 

I must admit that your partisanship is almost beyond my reach or patience but if you'd like to humor me please go back and explain why a completely free market resulted in catastrophic cruelty during the industrial revolution and why it was the heavy Marxist influence that finally established reasonable labor laws.

 

Did the free market decided that it was suddenly ok for everyone to make infinitively less money due to heavier restrictions? How does that work? Why would a company decide "I will put myself out of business by not being a sociopathic asshole to my employees while everybody else is!"

 

Or maybe, just maybe people looked at 13 year old kids working in coal mines and said "This is not fucking progress, this is wrong, maybe those crazy Marxist have some kind of a point!" and a compromise between a free market and basic fucking human decency was reached?

[colonelsofcorn]

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes we can and yes we had and continue to do so: We can observe mutations. We have observed viruses and other organism literally change before out lab equipment.

 

You're incorrectly assuming that there's a discint difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" that because of the great spawn of time we cannot observe species evolve over time. But you're wrong: we have. We had literally thousands of examples. Yes we've found the missing link. And that one too. And the one after that. We've documented so many detailed progressions of species changing over time it's statistically impossible to be a coincidence. More over we had tested the DNA of said creatures to confirm which specific gene mutated and we can trace back the ancestors with DNA evidence, you know that evidence that's so accurate it forever changed forensics and the legal system? Yep that comes from evolution theory and it was the first thing it demonstrated to exist.

 

More over all of the DNA evidence, all of the fossil records, all of the comparative pysiology analysis, everything confirm each other. Beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

If you cared enough to move past your cognitive dissonance and read even a few of the articles I linked you could easily see that it's not a debate. It's just a pseudo science, politically motivated group of people called Creatonism that spread misinformation and flatout lies about procceses they do not even understand because well Yahweh and their bible give em money and power over people.

Small variations cannot and do not lead to speciation. Dogs are still dogs and cannot change into turtles, fish cannot become birds, etc. 

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

The only problem is that we cannot observe evolution, that there are no in-between creatures, that the original creatures we supposedly evolved from are still present, etc. The article you provided is a nice definition of what and why, but even so, it cannot hold up under proper scientific methodology. 

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

The creatures we - as humans - evolved from are long dead and extinct. We did not, as many uninformed Creationists seem to think, evolve from Apes - and certainly not Apes that exist today.

 

Humans and Apes have a common ancestor. That means millions of years ago, a third species slowly split into one path that would eventually lead into Humanity, and another path that would eventually lead to our closest living relatives, the Chimpanzees.

 

That common ancestor may have been ape-like (Especially considering that humans are technically Apes - Hominids), but the early human ancestors (we're talking hundreds of millions of years ago) was closer to a common Tree Shrew.

 

No scientist believes that humans evolved from Chimpanzees, or any currently existing lifeform. If you've heard that, then you are grossly under educated about evolution, and certainly whoever told you that has no idea what they are talking about.

[ace_cheaply]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And at one point women and black people were not even considered citizens, here in the west. We literally fought motherfucking wars to change those paradigms.

 

But oh no it was the free market! 

 

I must admit that your partisanship is almost beyond my reach or patience but if you'd like to humor me please go back and explain why a completely free market resulted in catastrophic cruelty during the industrial revolution and why it was the heavy Marxist influence that finally established reasonable labor laws.

 

Did the free market decided that it was suddenly ok for everyone to make infinitively less money due to heavier restrictions? How does that work? Why would a company decide "I will put myself out of business by not being a sociopathic asshole to my employees while everybody else is!"

 

Or maybe, just maybe people looked at 13 year old kids working in coal mines and said "This is not fucking progress, this is wrong, maybe those crazy Marxist have some kind of a point!" and a compromise between a free market and basic fucking human decency was reached?

.

2 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

I DO believe capitalism should be left to function unopposed in most situations.  Public defenders and hospitals and those cases would be the obvious exception, but they're not exactly private now are they. 

2 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

I'm not for a completely free market, but I'm for a hell of a lot more free market than we have now. 

 

1 hour ago, ace_cheaply said:

 And like I said, I'm not for a totally free market, just much more of one than we have now.  Public sector has absolutely no right to biases, I agree with that 100%.

Please tell me where i said i was for a completely free market.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  If you're going to strawman my arguments there is no point to a debate. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Small variations cannot and do not lead to speciation. Dogs are still dogs and cannot change into turtles, fish cannot become birds, etc. 

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist claim that "A dog can turn into a turtle". No. A dog might evolve into a fox-like creature. A Bird might evolve into a different kind of bird with different features. Fish might evolve into different kinds of fish.

 

Over the course of billions of years, a fish could very well evolve into, say.... a Human, of course. But evolution is an extremely slow beast. In another Billion Years, humans won't even be recognizable (Assuming human lineage survives long enough). I couldn't even begin to imagine what human descendant species would look like in a Billion Years.

[ace_cheaply]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist claim that "A dog can turn into a turtle". No. A dog might evolve into a fox-like creature. A Bird might evolve into a different kind of bird with different features. Fish might evolve into different kinds of fish.

 

Over the course of billions of years, a fish could very well evolve into, say.... a Human, of course. But evolution is an extremely slow beast. In another Billion Years, humans won't even be recognizable (Assuming human lineage survives long enough). I couldn't even begin to imagine what human descendant species would look like in a Billion Years.

 

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist claim that "A dog can turn into a turtle". No. A dog might evolve into a fox-like creature. A Bird might evolve into a different kind of bird with different features. Fish might evolve into different kinds of fish.

 

Over the course of billions of years, a fish could very well evolve into, say.... a Human, of course. But evolution is an extremely slow beast. In another Billion Years, humans won't even be recognizable (Assuming human lineage survives long enough). I couldn't even begin to imagine what human descendant species would look like in a Billion Years.

You can say that again. 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

.

 

Please tell me where i said i was for a completely free market.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  If you're going to strawman my arguments there is no point to a debate. 

So I just read over @Misanthrope's post that you quoted. Several times in fact.

 

But I couldn't find "completely free market" in there. Not once. Not even any variations that wouldn't show up in a Text Search (such as "complete free market", etc).

 

Nope. So, if you're gonna strawman him and pretend he said something he different, at least don't claim that he is strawmanning when you are doing that exact thing.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So I just read over @Misanthrope's post that you quoted. Several times in fact.

 

But I couldn't find "completely free market" in there. Not once. Not even any variations that wouldn't show up in a Text Search (such as "complete free market", etc).

 

Nope. So, if you're gonna strawman him and pretend he said something he different, at least don't claim that he is strawmanning when you are doing that exact thing.

lolwut?

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I must admit that your partisanship is almost beyond my reach or patience but if you'd like to humor me please go back and explain why a completely free market resulted in catastrophic cruelty during the industrial revolution and why it was the heavy Marxist influence that finally established reasonable labor laws.

 

 

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Small variations cannot and do not lead to speciation. Dogs are still dogs and cannot change into turtles, fish cannot become birds, etc. 

We have bones of extremely similar mammals with every increasing differences, enough of them to see how they went from one species to another.

 

We've seen this happen. We've confirmed it with DNA evidence. I don't want to be condescending here with you but I really think you're basing this out of either misunderstanding basic biology concepts or false information.

 

Unlike that information, the scientific method welcomes your disagreement and invites you to try and disprove anything you find might not be accurate. It's just that at this point you'd have to overcome literal mountains of evidence but could theoretically disprove it all somehow.

 

So how can you be a reasonable person and not basically spit in the face of thousands of people that have dedicated their lives to study evolution and that have produced tangible fucking results that translate into basically most modern medicine that literally save lives, because some fucking guy in a robe says "Nope, god done did it all, in 6 days! Because the boooks says so, and good says read the book, and the book says listen to god that says read the book!"

[Misanthrope]

13 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Please tell me where i said i was for a completely free market.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  If you're going to strawman my arguments there is no point to a debate. 

Really? A cop out? Fine at least we agree: a completely free market doesn't works. Limits must exist. You just disagree about which ones because you think bigots should be free to restrict the freedom of others and that somehow makes sense to you.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

lolwut?

 

Well you got me there. I overlooked that somehow. Definitely my bad.

 

With that in mind, the fact that it was a "completely free market" is not even the main point of his argument. Even with some minor regulations, widespread rampant discrimination happened all across the USA during the early and middle parts of the 20th century.

 

Personally, I'd rather not leave that up to the hands of people in a "free market" to make things right, when sometimes it can take years or decades or even longer, for a transition to fix an issue. That's too long. That's too much undue hardship on someone that didn't deserve it.

 

If you want to argue that fines are too large for when a gay man sues a Christian for not serving him, that's one thing. But let's talk about how to fix the problem before throwing it all out the window.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

We have bones of extremely similar mammals with every increasing differences, enough of them to see how they went from one species to another.

 

We've seen this happen. We've confirmed it with DNA evidence. I don't want to be condescending here with you but I really think you're basing this out of either misunderstanding basic biology concepts or false information.

 

Unlike that information, the scientific method welcomes your disagreement and invites you to try and disprove anything you find might not be accurate. It's just that at this point you'd have to overcome literal mountains of evidence but could theoretically disprove it all somehow.

 

So how can you be a reasonable person and not basically spit in the face of thousands of people that have dedicated their lives to study evolution and that have produced tangible fucking results that translate into basically most modern medicine that literally save lives, because some fucking guy in a robe says "Nope, god done did it all, in 6 days! Because the boooks says so, and good says read the book, and the book says listen to god that says read the book!"

I agree - it's kind of absurd at this point. There's literally so much evidence for evolution that it's kind of mind boggling that anyone can dismiss that evidence simply because they lack understanding or education or are indoctrinated to believe a false tale from a book written 3500 years ago, when they didn't know how fucking rain works - or magnets (PS: Magnets are not magic).

[ace_cheaply]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Really? A cop out? Fine at least we agree: a completely free market doesn't works. Limits must exist. You just disagree about which ones because you think bigots should be free to restrict the freedom of others and that somehow makes sense to you.

I thought i summed that up perfectly with this. 

1 hour ago, ace_cheaply said:

What part of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not getting through? Who cares if you refused because he is gay, or ugly, or fat, or smelly, or because he reminds you of your ex's new squeeze.  It doesn't matter. Whatever the reason, we reserve the right to refuse service. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution. Don't like it? Tell your friends and go next door.

and this

 

55 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

A company that doesn't serve to all is going to quickly be denounced and exposed, and their business will suffer from the lack of the affected persons AND from the lack of the business of everyone that shares their values.  That company isn't going to last very long, and so it isn't leaving anyone at a disadvantage. That's the beauty of a free market, someone is just as free to come in and take the businees you refuse. By the way, can you name any type of situation where this would occur? You can't make up a hypothetical and then take away someones rights based on a scenario that doesn't even exist. 

and this 

 

1 hour ago, ace_cheaply said:

It doesn't harm the economy. It's not hard to figure out....I was going to spend $20 on pizza here at Racist Rodney's pizzeria.  He won't serve me, so now I'll spend my dollars at Social Justice Sam's Pizza House and viola. The same amount of money went into the economy.  Where's the damage here?

 

The forced labor comes when somebody refuses to serve you, and then you DEMAND TO BE SERVED. What is not coming across here? If you refuse to serve, and then are FORCED TO SERVED, that is forced labor...

Do i need to repeat that logic again?  Maybe i need to too. 

 

BET can deny to put white hosts on its channel, why aren't they being fined hundreds of thousands for discrimination?  Oh, it's only discrimination if a white christian/male does it, I forgot. 

so if you understood my views already I don't know why we're even arguing.

 

BTW, they are "free" to go anywhere else they want, you are the one that wants to restrict people's freedom to work when and where they choose for whatever reasons they choose. 

[dalekphalm]

22 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Small variations cannot and do not lead to speciation. Dogs are still dogs and cannot change into turtles, fish cannot become birds, etc. 

Just out of curiosity, so we understand your arguments fully:

 

How DO you believe the universe, the solar system, and the Earth were created? How do you believe Humans came to be?

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree - it's kind of absurd at this point. There's literally so much evidence for evolution that it's kind of mind boggling that anyone can dismiss that evidence simply because they lack understanding or education or are indoctrinated to believe a false tale from a book written 3500 years ago, when they didn't know how fucking rain works - or magnets (PS: Magnets are not magic).

Spoiler

 

[ace_cheaply]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well you got me there. I overlooked that somehow. Definitely my bad.

 

With that in mind, the fact that it was a "completely free market" is not even the main point of his argument. Even with some minor regulations, widespread rampant discrimination happened all across the USA during the early and middle parts of the 20th century.

 

Personally, I'd rather not leave that up to the hands of people in a "free market" to make things right, when sometimes it can take years or decades or even longer, for a transition to fix an issue. That's too long. That's too much undue hardship on someone that didn't deserve it.

 

If you want to argue that fines are too large for when a gay man sues a Christian for not serving him, that's one thing. But let's talk about how to fix the problem before throwing it all out the window.

Well, i've already explained how social pressure made it economically more profitable to discriminate before the 60's, that I'm glad that we have changed since then, and now the economic pressure would swing completely the other way.  I agree it was necessary to do something at the time to speed the process along.  I don't want to argue the fines are too large, i am arguing a fine at all is ridiculous.  The lesbians who sued the pizza parlor had no right to their service if they hadn't paid for it and the owners didn't want to give it.  The problem is fixed in my eyes, a business discriminating in 2016 is going to lose money, making it not a viable long term strategy, and now we're in the stage of overcorrection for the sake of political correctness, and any time you have to add a qualifier to the word correct you are getting in dangerous territory, in my eyes.  Those pizza parlor owners were specifically targeted by this couple for their beliefs, and the entitlement is outrageous to me. 

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Well, i've already explained how social pressure made it economically more profitable to discriminate before the 60's, that I'm glad that we have changed since then, and now the economic pressure would swing completely the other way.  I agree it was necessary to do something at the time to speed the process along.  I don't want to argue the fines are too large, i am arguing a fine at all is ridiculous.  The lesbians who sued the pizza parlor had no right to their service if they hadn't paid for it and the owners didn't want to give it.  The problem is fixed in my eyes, a business discriminating in 2016 is going to lose money, making it not a viable long term strategy, and now we're in the stage of overcorrection for the sake of political correctness, and any time you have to add a qualifier to the word correct you are getting in dangerous territory, in my eyes. 

One of your arguments is that "They can just go somewhere else", and in many places, that's correct.

 

But in lots of places - especially smaller and more remote communities, where discrimination against the "unusual" is more common, there very well might only be one pizza place, or one wedding cake business. So what are they supposed to do? Now they have to suddenly waste a ton of money and resources travelling to a new city or even county/region to get pizza? That's insane.

 

You could then say "well someone else can just come in and offer to sell to Gay people".

 

Well what if there are only 5 gay people in the town? Who's going to risk investment in a new business where the discriminated clientele in question is so small as to not make it economically viable.

 

In that situation, leaving it up to the free market basically just allows discrimination to continue to foster.

 

Not everywhere in America is all sunshine and rainbows with progressive views. There are lots of places where the average citizen in the town doesn't care if a gay person is discriminated against, because they've never even met one.

[ace_cheaply]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

One of your arguments is that "They can just go somewhere else", and in many places, that's correct.

 

But in lots of places - especially smaller and more remote communities, where discrimination against the "unusual" is more common, there very well might only be one pizza place, or one wedding cake business. So what are they supposed to do? Now they have to suddenly waste a ton of money and resources travelling to a new city or even county/region to get pizza? That's insane.

 

You could then say "well someone else can just come in and offer to sell to Gay people".

 

Well what if there are only 5 gay people in the town? Who's going to risk investment in a new business where the discriminated clientele in question is so small as to not make it economically viable.

 

In that situation, leaving it up to the free market basically just allows discrimination to continue to foster.

 

Not everywhere in America is all sunshine and rainbows with progressive views. There are lots of places where the average citizen in the town doesn't care if a gay person is discriminated against, because they've never even met one.

So your solution is to force people to work who don't wish to?  And how is that not forced labor again?  What if they decide to just quit...Do they have to go back to work for these people? Are they still liable because they quit over working for a gay person? Are you ok with people personally targeting this business because they are Christian, purposely to sue and play the victim?

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

So your solution is to force people to work who don't wish to?  And how is that not forced labor again?  What if they decide to just quit...Do they have to go back to work for these people? Are they still liable because they quit over working for a gay person? Are you ok with people personally targeting this business because they are Christian, purposely to sue and play the victim?

Yes, because it's not forced labor, you were explained this from a legal stand point at great length.

 

And while we're at it: Yes I am ok with targeting Christians. This is still not persecussion this is showing how THEY persecute people with their bigotry and discrimination to the general public i.e. if I go to the police and denounce a serial killer, I am not suddenly persecuting serial killers, I am trying to stop more people from getting fucking murdered.

 

If that's what it takes to stop bigotry, a frivolous lawsuit, sure. You act as if it was the end of the fucking world to just bake a fucking cake for someone you don't like. If you ever worked retail you'd quickly learn you have to serve people that you dislike 90% of the fucking time, big deal is not like they asked not to pay for the fucking cake you still got paid, deal with it.

 

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

So your solution is to force people to work who don't wish to?  And how is that not forced labor again?  What if they decide to just quit...Do they have to go back to work for these people? Are they still liable because they quit over working for a gay person? Are you ok with people personally targeting this business because they are Christian, purposely to sue and play the victim?

They aren't forced, BECAUSE they have the legal right to quit. Or to close down their business forever. Or to decide "Hey it's 4PM and there are no customers, I'm closing shop and going home!"

 

However, when you created a business, you legally agreed that when you are open, you won't turn away customers without a good reason (As I mentioned before: them being an asshole or aggressive or trying to attack you, etc).

 

If someone personally targets a christian business to purposefully sue and "play the victim", then one of two things will happen:

1. They win, because despite their motivations, the christian business owner was still breaking the laws and discriminating unduly, or

2. They will lose, get counter-sued, and potentially face jailtime for attempting fraudulent lawsuits against a business that is abiding to all laws.

[ace_cheaply]

31 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes, because it's not forced labor, you were explained this from a legal stand point at great length.

 

And while we're at it: Yes I am ok with targeting Christians. This is still not persecussion this is showing how THEY persecute people with their bigotry and discrimination to the general public i.e. if I go to the police and denounce a serial killer, I am not suddenly persecuting serial killers, I am trying to stop more people from getting fucking murdered.

 

If that's what it takes to stop bigotry, a frivolous lawsuit, sure. You act as if it was the end of the fucking world to just bake a fucking cake for someone you don't like. If you ever worked retail you'd quickly learn you have to serve people that you dislike 90% of the fucking time, big deal is not like they asked not to pay for the fucking cake you still got paid, deal with it.

 

 

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

They aren't forced, BECAUSE they have the legal right to quit. Or to close down their business forever. Or to decide "Hey it's 4PM and there are no customers, I'm closing shop and going home!"

 

However, when you created a business, you legally agreed that when you are open, you won't turn away customers without a good reason (As I mentioned before: them being an asshole or aggressive or trying to attack you, etc).

 

If someone personally targets a christian business to purposefully sue and "play the victim", then one of two things will happen:

1. They win, because despite their motivations, the christian business owner was still breaking the laws and discriminating unduly, or

2. They will lose, get counter-sued, and potentially face jailtime for attempting fraudulent lawsuits against a business that is abiding to all laws.

Ok, so you both don't understand the concept of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That is patently obvious.  

And you are both ok with targeting christians purposefully for the purpose of suing and violating their 1st and 13th amendment rights.  Got it. I disagree, for all of the reasons outlined above. Conversation over.  

[roboplex22]

The thing that gets me the most is all the people who are ignorant to the different views of different Christian religions. Most people think we're all anti-gay and anti-immigration and think we follow the Bible like a history book. I'm Catholic, and I go to a very progressive (liberal) church.

 

Our Priest is extremely focused on others. Our wine and cheese after Mass is sponsored by the LGBT community, and we accept everybody for who they are. We don't shun Gay people, divorcees, or non-Catholics. We welcome them into the whole. We don't follow the Bible like it's etched in stone. Our Priest teaches that a lot of the Bible is metaphor. No, 2 people named Adam and Eve most likely didn't take a bite from a literal apple and then God punished all of humanity for it. It's a metaphor for how we should live our lives, and how we should follow God. Christianity and Science can coexist peacefully.

 

So many people think that all Christians are traditional Southern Baptists (nothing against them, but you know what I mean) and we're not. Pope Francis is one of the most progressive Popes ever, and honestly, it pisses me off that so many non-Christians profile all of us based on a small group who aren't cooperating with modern-day views and rights.

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

Ok, so you both don't understand the concept of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That is patently obvious.  

And you are both ok with targeting christians purposefully for the purpose of suing and violating their 1st and 13th amendment rights.  Got it. I disagree, for all of the reasons outlined above. Conversation over.  

1) Not understanding does not equal not agreeing or realizing there should be exceptions. I.E. I can agree with Copyrights in principle while still denouncing it's terrible implementation and/or still recognizing Fair Use provisions to said law.

 

2) Refusing service to anyone is not the same as "For any reason".

 

3) You were explained, in detail, how you were completely wrong on the constitutional amendment matter and so far you continue to assert it without offering a counter argument. Repeating a statement without offering further evidence only serves to deflate your (painful lack of any) arguments.

 

4) The conversation isn't over because you childishly declare it so. Again the conversation being over does not equal you walking away from it.