The spread of liberalism and the extermination of religion

[abdullah abdul]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

WRONG Abdul

 

There is not a single McDonald's or Macy's that refuses to serve gay people in this country. There are no laws or "discriminatory business practices" that currently exist on the books here i America. So there goes your argument out the window

 

What gay people in America are trying to eliminate is any sort of personal opposition to their unnatural and perverted lifestyle.

 

You yourself supplied a glaring example of discriminatory business practices. When that Colorado baker refused to supply the gay couple with a wedding cake, despite providing that service to straight couples, his actions stepped out out the bounds of "personal opposition" and entered the realm of discrimination. This should be apparent to any sensible person. Unfortunately, I am afraid you do not meet this criterion.

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@Oceans1

said:</cite>

You yourself supplied a glaring example of discriminatory business practices. When that Colorado baker refused to supply the gay couple with a wedding cake, despite providing that service to straight couples, his actions stepped out out the bounds of "personal opposition" and entered the realm of discrimination. This should be apparent to any sensible person. Unfortunately, I am afraid you do not meet this criterion.

 

You're repeating the exact same argument that Tallaabo made, and I already made a response to that. So....do you want me to copy/paste my posts again, or would you prefer to just scroll up and read what I already posted?

 

Would that be too difficult for you?

[abdullah abdul]

 

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

You're repeating the exact same argument that Tallaabo made, and I already made a response to that. So....do you want me to copy/paste my posts again, or would you prefer to just scroll up and read what I already posted?

 

Would that be too difficult for you?

 

A business owner was sued by some Muslims in my city. They wanted to pray during their shift and he refused. When confronted, he said:

 

"I let Muslims work here. Treat them just like everybody else. But I won't have them praying to Allah on my property. That ain't right. That's against my personal beliefs."

 

I suppose he considered Islam an "unnatural and perverted" lifestyle. Why else would he be opposed to them praying on his property? I also suppose you must support him in his decision—unless, of course, you're a hypocrite.

[DoctorKenney]

The First Amendment in America protects you from the Government infringing on your freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which means it technically gives you the freedom to not participate in any action which you think might violate your religion or personal beliefs. So therefore, no one can step in and force a Muslim woman to take off her hijab. And no one can force a Baker to bake a gay-wedding cake if his religious beliefs go against that. Discrimination is one thing, and if the Baker refused to actually serve the gay couple, then yes he would be doing something illegal.

 

This Business Owner refusing to allow his Muslim employees to pray at work is an invalid comparison, and you got it completely backwards, because all he's obligated to do (legally) is not prevent his own employees from practicing their 1st Amendment Rights, so long as it doesn't place any significant burden on the business itself.

[Khayr]

 

 

Seeing that you appear to be faith-based bigot...

 

How can he ever engage you in a discussion

(Bill Bob aka Abdullah Abdul) when you act and behave like a Demagogue

by deliberately trying to negate anything he says

witu your abhorent biase and fear mongering of anything faith-based.

 

All you have shown so far is how beligerant

and intolerant "Liberal Internet Trollers" are.

Just a bunch of privilged a##wholes that are self righteous with their overly dogmatic anti- religious secular-liberalism.

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

You're repeating the exact same argument that Tallaabo made, and I already made a response to that. So....do you want me to copy/paste my posts again, or would you prefer to just scroll up and read what I already posted?

 

Would that be too difficult for you?

Actually you are the one who is going in circles :-D

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

How can he ever engage you in a discussion

(Bill Bob aka Abdullah Abdul)

when you act and behave like a

Demagogue

by deliberately trying to negate anything he says

witu your abhorent biase and fear mongering of anything faith-based.

 

All you have shown so far is how beligerant

and intolerant

"Liberal Internet Trollers"

are.

Just a bunch of privilged a##wholes that are self righteous with their overly dogmatic anti- religious secular-liberalism.

I thought you were a "mumin" so what is this foul language? :-D I can smell hypocrisy.

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

Actually you are the one who is going in circles :-D

 

I know. I hate repeating myself

[Khayr]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

I thought you were a "mumin" so what is this foul language? :-D I can smell hypocrisy.

 

This is not Twitter, so either respond fully

or go back in your corner of the class and crouch down facing the wall like a good school boy.

[abdullah abdul]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

The First Amendment in America protects you from the Government infringing on your freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which means it technically gives you the freedom to

not

participate in any action which you think might violate your religion or personal beliefs. So therefore, no one can step in and force a Muslim woman to take off her hijab. And no one can force a Baker to bake a gay-wedding cake if his religious beliefs go against that. Discrimination is one thing, and if the Baker refused to actually serve the gay couple, then yes he would be doing something illegal.

 

This Business Owner refusing to allow his Muslim employees to pray at work is an invalid comparison, and you got it completely backwards, because all he's obligated to do (legally) is not prevent his own employees from practicing their 1st Amendment Rights, so long as it doesn't place any significant burden on the business itself.

 

It's a perfectly valid comparison. You defended the Colorado baker by arguing that serving the gay wedding cake would offend his deeply held beliefs; I gave you an example of Muslim behavior offending the deeply held beliefs of an employer. You have now decided to preform acrobatics to justify the discrimination against the gays while being against anti-Muslim discrimination. You therefore are a hypocrite. And not a very bright one at that. Because if you were, you'd realize that just as many Americans despise Muslims as they do gays and if it were to become "ok" to turn people away simply because the business owner disapproves of their lifestyle, we'd see plenty of hijabis and other apparent Muslims denied service because "towelheads blew up America."

 

But anyway, I do not feel this exchange is serving any further purpose. You can bitch all you want, but gay marriage will soon because legal across the entire United States because of quickly changing values, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

[Khayr]

Would things or the popular sentiment had been any different if it was a known wife beater (Ray Rice anyone?) coming to the cake shop and the shop owner saying No to him? Or is it just a case of media and popular culture heaviy favoring anything and anyone affliated with that

particular group?

 

[DoctorKenney]

You're just repeating yourself here. There's nothing you said right now, that you haven't said in the previous post. So my response is gonna be exactly the same either way. You are a proponent of Liberalism, and it shows your utter hypocrisy when you so blatantly pick-and-choose which portions of Liberalism you would like to enforce. Had the Christian Baker refused to serve this gay couple altogether, then yes I would be against this behavior. The Baker was willing to serve them, just on his own terms, and not on their terms. But once the gay couple expect him to go out of his way, to cater to their personal lifestyle which is a direct affront to his religious beliefs, then that oversteps the so-called "boundaries" of Liberalism and it crosses into new territory. It's the same as forcing an Imam or Priest to perform a marriage between a man and his sister, or between a man and another man. Or forcing a Catholic painter to paint a painting glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. Or forcing a Jewish-owned Grocery Store to start serving non-Kosher meat. This directly contradicts the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Act, which was put into place to protect anyone's religious freedoms from being infringed upon. But you're full of contradictions. You say you believe in "Religious Freedom"....but only until it crosses the line that you yourself drew. And the lines keep shifting year-by-year. In the 1990's, it was "live and let live", but in the 2010's, it is "You either serve me on my terms, or else I'm going to report you to the authorities." If you can't see for yourself what this will inevitably lead to in the coming years, then I have no use in even talking to you. If the Baker finds his customer's order to be distasteful, then he can refuse to make that design, and that's his private right to do so. I myself have experienced it before when I visited bakeries, and I see nothing wrong with it. I'm done with this discussion. I've said what I needed to say and anything I say more than this would be repetition.

[xabad]

Abdul you are wrong on this one.

 

 

[abdullah abdul]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

You're just repeating yourself here. There's nothing you said right now, that you haven't said in the previous post. So my response is gonna be exactly the same either way. You are a proponent of Liberalism, and it shows your

utter hypocrisy

when you so blatantly pick-and-choose which portions of Liberalism you would like to enforce. Had the Christian Baker refused to serve this gay couple altogether, then yes I would be against this behavior.

The Baker was willing to serve them, just on his own terms, and not on their terms.

But once the gay couple expect him to go out of his way, to cater to their personal lifestyle which is a direct affront to his religious beliefs, then that oversteps the so-called "boundaries" of Liberalism and it crosses into new territory. It's the same as forcing an Imam or Priest to perform a marriage between a man and his sister, or between a man and another man. Or forcing a Catholic painter to paint a painting glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. Or forcing a Jewish-owned Grocery Store to start serving non-Kosher meat. This

directly contradicts the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Act

, which was put into place to protect anyone's religious freedoms from being infringed upon. But you're full of contradictions. You say you believe in "Religious Freedom"....but only until it crosses the line that you yourself drew. And the lines keep shifting year-by-year. In the 1990's, it was "live and let live", but in the 2010's, it is "You either serve me on my terms, or else I'm going to report you to the authorities." If you can't see for yourself what this will inevitably lead to in the coming years, then I have no use in even talking to you. If the Baker finds his customer's order to be distasteful, then he can refuse to make that design, and that's his private right to do so. I myself have experienced it before when I visited bakeries, and I see nothing wrong with it. I'm done with this discussion. I've said what I needed to say and anything I say more than this would be repetition.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that discrimination is legal so long as it tarted up as a "religious" or "personal" stand. That's not the case. I suggest you educate yourself on the laws of this country.

[short vega]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

Would things or the popular sentiment had been any different if it was a known wife beater (Ray Rice anyone?) coming to the cake shop and the shop owner saying No to him? Or is it just a case of media and popular culture heaviy favoring anything and anyone affliated with that

particular group?

 

If the baker refused to serve Ray Rice because he's black, that would be racial discrimination which is illegal. Likewise if Ray Rice was gay and the baker was being a bigoted homophobe. If the baker simply didn't want to have him as a customer for reasons other than being prejudiced, that's her or his prerogative.