Why The Assault On Religious Liberty?

[Guest]

The American founders believed religious freedom so essential to the forming of our Republic that they incorporated it into our First Amendment.

However in today's political climate and ensuing cultural divisions religious liberty/freedom is under constant attack.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar bills incorporated into RFRA have been challenged in Georgia. North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri not to forget the number of assaults committed by the Obama Administration.

Those opposing religious freedoms/liberty have mounted massive boycott campaigns in these states and have included threats to various corporations to support their demands or face economic retribution These radicals have enlisted the help of celebrities the liberal media and left leaning corporate leaders to peddle misinformed and misleading propaganda.

Yet these very same people promote diversity and inclusion except for people of faith.

The founders understood that religious liberty was essential because all other freedoms flowed from it as intended by God.

If Americans do not fight for the right of religious freedom then we will fall into a secular state and a secular state dictates that rights flow from the state and thus we will be governed by men and not by the rule of law. Anyone not understanding this or placing their selfish needs above this concept sow the seeds of America's destruction.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect."

Of the 3, I think the Pursuit of Happiness is most in jeopardy. I think the middle class is not worried about anyone taking away their freedom to worship. They just want to make a decent living and have a chance of pursuing the American dream like their parents and grandparents.

[Guest]

If you're religious, you've been brainwashed. I mean really, God watches over everything and knows everything...about us? Really?

If anything, we're his dissertation on infectious lifeforms on otherwise pristine planets.

[Guest]

If you're religious, you've been brainwashed. I mean really, God watches over everything and knows everything...about us? Really?

If anything, we're his dissertation on infectious lifeforms on otherwise pristine planets.I think the conversation is about the freedom to think what you want as you do.

[Guest]

Religious liberty to libtards means to be liberated from any form of religion that might hamper their deviant lifestyle. They know that they can't be liberal and religious. That would definitely put a stop to their fun, as they know it. The only charity they believe in is take from those that have and give it to those that don't have, as long as they are not included in the taking away part.

[Guest]

If you're religious, you've been brainwashed. I mean really, God watches over everything and knows everything...about us? Really?

If anything, we're his dissertation on infectious lifeforms on otherwise pristine planets.

Do you have car insurance? Isn't it better to be insured and not need it, than to not be insured and then be screwed when it's too late? I would rather have faith and find out that I was wrong (not going to happen) than to not believe and find out too late. And besides, I have not found one scholar that has been able to give me evidence to disprove my faith. And certainly not a retard on this forum.......:loco:

[Guest]

Do you have car insurance? Isn't it better to be insured and not need it, than to not be insured and then be screwed when it's too late? I would rather have faith and find out that I was wrong (not going to happen) than to not believe and find out too late. And besides, I have not found one scholar that has been able to give me evidence to disprove my faith. And certainly not a retard on this forum.......:loco:

Better retarded than insane...

[Guest]

I answered on post 2 and 4 . In case you are keeping score. Can you recogmnize my style? See any name calling? See how I am willing to listen to other points of view?

[Guest]

The American founders believed religious freedom so essential to the forming of our Republic that they incorporated it into our First Amendment.

However in today's political climate and ensuing cultural divisions religious liberty/freedom is under constant attack.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar bills incorporated into RFRA have been challenged in Georgia. North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri not to forget the number of assaults committed by the Obama Administration.

Those opposing religious freedoms/liberty have mounted massive boycott campaigns in these states and have included threats to various corporations to support their demands or face economic retribution These radicals have enlisted the help of celebrities the liberal media and left leaning corporate leaders to peddle misinformed and misleading propaganda.

Yet these very same people promote diversity and inclusion except for people of faith.

The founders understood that religious liberty was essential because all other freedoms flowed from it as intended by God.

If Americans do not fight for the right of religious freedom then we will fall into a secular state and a secular state dictates that rights flow from the state and thus we will be governed by men and not by the rule of law. Anyone not understanding this or placing their selfish needs above this concept sow the seeds of America's destruction.

Personal Best Regards:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I clearly understand this amendment but I also understand how it can be misunderstood.

I am going to use the Private Country example. For many years women, such as myself, were NOT allowed to be a primary member of a Country Club and they were NOT allowed to get a tee time on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. As membership fell over the years Country Clubs looked for other streams of income. So they opened these clubs for public uses for a fee. Think weddings.

Had they remained a PRIVATE club nothing could be done to change the rules. Think Augusta! However, once they opened their doors to accommodate the PUBLIC they were required to treat everyone the same. So that is how I a single women got a primary membership in a country club.

This, of course, went through the court system.

If you are an establishment open to the public you also have to treat everyone the same. You can't say you won't bake a cake for a gay person or a black person or a Muslim.

In my opinion, if these laws go though the Courts they will be struct down.

This is NOT an assault on your religion, if you don't want to bake cakes for a protected class then don't be a PUBLIC company.

[Guest]

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect."

Of the 3, I think the Pursuit of Happiness is most in jeopardy. I think the middle class is not worried about anyone taking away their freedom to worship. They just want to make a decent living and have a chance of pursuing the American dream like their parents and grandparents.

Ask the slaves at the time of the Declaration of Independence if they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Guest]

QUOTE=Guest;1211306]The American founders believed religious freedom so essential to the forming of our Republic that they incorporated it into our First Amendment.

However in today's political climate and ensuing cultural divisions religious liberty/freedom is under constant attack.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar bills incorporated into RFRA have been challenged in Georgia. North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri not to forget the number of assaults committed by the Obama Administration.

Those opposing religious freedoms/liberty have mounted massive boycott campaigns in these states and have included threats to various corporations to support their demands or face economic retribution These radicals have enlisted the help of celebrities the liberal media and left leaning corporate leaders to peddle misinformed and misleading propaganda.

Yet these very same people promote diversity and inclusion except for people of faith.

The founders understood that religious liberty was essential because all other freedoms flowed from it as intended by God.

If Americans do not fight for the right of religious freedom then we will fall into a secular state and a secular state dictates that rights flow from the state and thus we will be governed by men and not by the rule of law. Anyone not understanding this or placing their selfish needs above this concept sow the seeds of America's destruction.

Personal Best Regards:[/QUOTE


B.S. Do not try to sound so high and mighty.

[Guest]

Boy do I miss the IGNORE feature of the original political forum!

[Guest]

Ask the slaves at the time of the Declaration of Independence if they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.I don't think they did. I'm not sure they were speaking for women either.
And I wonder if they truly meant everyone was created equally would we have skipped the civil war, spared lives or needed to rebuild the nation.
By now our society would be completely homogeneous too.
What do you think?
[anyone can answer]

[Guest]

I don't think they did. I'm not sure they were speaking for women either.
And I wonder if they truly meant everyone was created equally would we have skipped the civil war, spared lives or needed to rebuild the nation.
By now our society would be completely homogeneous too.
What do you think?
[anyone can answer]

If all men were created equally, why did slaves count only as three fifths of a freeman?

Oh no, here we go with the dreaded revisionist history that the regressives are always talking about!

[Guest]

Ask the slaves at the time of the Declaration of Independence if they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I doubt they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I doubt their decedents are enjoying those things today. Assistance programs have not been helping them over the years, just keeping them in the lower social and economic status. Some of the housing projects have 3 generations of families living there in a row, an absolute failure of those programs.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

If all men were created equally, why did slaves count only as three fifths of a freeman?

Oh no, here we go with the dreaded revisionist history that the regressives are always talking about!
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I don't think they did. I'm not sure they were speaking for women either.
And I wonder if they truly meant everyone was created equally would we have skipped the civil war, spared lives or needed to rebuild the nation.
By now our society would be completely homogeneous too.
What do you think?
[anyone can answer]

We are in agreement. You missed that point.

[Guest]

Ask the slaves at the time of the Declaration of Independence if they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I guess the slaves can thank God for Republicans, since they are the ones that continued to pursue freedom for them, even into the 50's and 60's with the equal rights Amendments. It's a shame and very disingenuous that the left is always trying to take credit for civil rights.

[Guest]

If all men were created equally, why did slaves count only as three fifths of a freeman?
They had it wrong. You have it right. What's your point? We need to fix things to make it right?

[Guest]

I guess the slaves can thank God for Republicans, since they are the ones that continued to pursue freedom for them, even into the 50's and 60's with the equal rights Amendments. It's a shame and very disingenuous that the left is always trying to take credit for civil rights.So the failed programs are caused by the Republicans of the 50's and 60's.

disingenuous-
Lately you see that word quite a bit on the threads.
Synonyms:
misrepresented, twisted, artful, insincere, distorted

[Guest]

Ask the slaves at the time of the Declaration of Independence if they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Weren't considered "people", I'm thinking they were right and we're wrong.

I don't think they did. I'm not sure they were speaking for women either.
And I wonder if they truly meant everyone was created equally would we have skipped the civil war, spared lives or needed to rebuild the nation.
By now our society would be completely homogeneous too.
What do you think?
[anyone can answer]

All "men" are "created equal", you're not equal, never were and never will be. That's why the "civil rights movement" really destroyed this nation, it didn't improve anything. We WERE at the top before the 60s, now we struggle to stay mediocre. Not everyone has the same potential.

I doubt they enjoyed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I doubt their decedents are enjoying those things today. Assistance programs have not been helping them over the years, just keeping them in the lower social and economic status. Some of the housing projects have 3 generations of families living there in a row, an absolute failure of those programs.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

They're not capable, they're not equal, that's why they can't compete equally.

They had it wrong. You have it right. What's your point? We need to fix things to make it right?

No, they had it RIGHT...WE have it wrong. Things started downhill with the "civil rights" of the 60s. When we started fooling ourselves that everyone is equal.

[Guest]

Equality is nothing more than another platform for select special interest and minority groups to have a political position that of course it immediately picked up and amplified by the politicians and their lemming media.

[Guest]

I say if you want to be equal to what I have you make the same peronal sacrifices and efforts to get there.

You want it handed to you by making it a political, media side show.....stay where you are....you have what you have (earned).

[Guest]

I say if you want to be equal to what I have you make the same peronal sacrifices and efforts to get there.

You want it handed to you by making it a political, media side show.....stay where you are....you have what you have (earned).

:agree:

[Guest]

I guess the slaves can thank God for Republicans, since they are the ones that continued to pursue freedom for them, even into the 50's and 60's with the equal rights Amendments. It's a shame and very disingenuous that the left is always trying to take credit for civil rights.

Sir you are correct but you forget one important fact (not sure you're really into facts though). The democratic southern racists turned republican when Johnson signed the civil rights bill in the 60's. Now those same southern racists are voting for the likes of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

[Guest]

Sir you are correct but you forget one important fact (not sure you're really into facts though). The democratic southern racists turned republican when Johnson signed the civil rights bill in the 60's. Now those same southern racists are voting for the likes of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

I believe the quote was:

"We have lost the South for a generation!"

It has been much longer than that.....

The long goodbye | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17467202)

[Guest]

In 1952 and 1956, a majority of blacks backed the Republican Party. The Democratic domination of the African American vote really did not begin until 1960, when Kennedy dramatically called Coretta Scott King, the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, after her husband was sent to prison in Georgia. On Election Day, blacks showed their appreciation by voting for Kennedy by a margin of 70-30, more than enough to give the Democrat the victory over Richard Nixon.
In 1964, the black preference for the Democrats became a landslide, as president Lyndon Johnson rallied a grieving nation after Kennedy's assassination to demand passage of the strong civil rights bill JFK had proposed during his last year in office. Backed by a national outcry, Johnson jammed through the far-reaching legislation, which ended discrimination against blacks in virtually every area of national life. Ironically, it was only with strong Republican support that the bill was able to pass.
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 56-57 , Oct 11, 2005

[Guest]

And yet, the Democrats voted against every civil rights bill for two centuries.

[Guest]

And yet, the Democrats voted against every civil rights bill for two centuries.go figure

[Guest]

Sir you are correct but you forget one important fact (not sure you're really into facts though). The democratic southern racists turned republican when Johnson signed the civil rights bill in the 60's. Now those same southern racists are voting for the likes of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Oh? I 've heard that also. Please tell me how many of your so-called Southern Racists turned Republican. Does that mean that the Republicans that were FOR abolishing slavery and voted for all those amendments were really Democrats in disguise? I have heard many myths regarding how Democrats turned Republican so were not responsible for voting against abolishing slavery. I have also heard many excuses as to how they (Democrats) were not against Civil rights, even though they voted against it. I think that it is convenient to repeat myths, and you have been very good at convincing minorities that you are really on their side. So exactly how many Republicans turned Democrat when the Democrats turned Republican?

[Guest]

go figure

I believe we both know why? That Democratic party was transformed under Kennedy and Johnson!

[Guest]

I believe we both know why? That Democratic party was transformed under Kennedy and Johnson!FDR had the Black vote. Kennedy reached out to MLK's wife for support.

[Guest]

I think this thread has gotten off topic.....

So to return the Gov of North Carolina is trying amend the bill and the Gov of Louisiana is rescinding Bobby Jindal's Religious Freedom Law.

Gov. John Bel Edwards to Rescind Bobby Jindal's Horrific Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Order - The New Civil Rights Movement (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/louisiana_gov_john_bel_edwards_to_rescind_bobby_ji ndal_s_horrific_anti_gay_religious_freedom_order)

I really don't think supporters of these bill understand the concept of public accommodation. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple open a private bakery.

[Guest]

John Stewart---
The Daily Show - A Million Gays to Deny in the Midwest
v=mppJxR5wPCw
I miss him.

[Guest]

John Stewart---
The Daily Show - A Million Gays to Deny in the Midwest
v=mppJxR5wPCw
I miss him.
A better link perhaps.....

https://youtu.be/mppJxR5wPCw

[Guest]

I think this thread has gotten off topic.....

So to return the Gov of North Carolina is trying amend the bill and the Gov of Louisiana is rescinding Bobby Jindal's Religious Freedom Law.

Gov. John Bel Edwards to Rescind Bobby Jindal's Horrific Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Order - The New Civil Rights Movement (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/louisiana_gov_john_bel_edwards_to_rescind_bobby_ji ndal_s_horrific_anti_gay_religious_freedom_order)

I really don't think supporters of these bill understand the concept of public accommodation. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple open a private bakery.

Unless the gov owns the bakery, it IS a private bakery. It is a privately owned business, is it not? I am sure that these owners will not be hurt too greatly by gays boycotting their bakeries.

And this is not JUST related to bakeries. It has to do with allowing cross dressing perverts into opposite gender restrooms. If gays want to boycott those states that want to accommodate the majority view, then I say "adios amigas." And don't let the speed limit hinder you when passing through the state.

[Guest]

A better link perhaps.....

https://youtu.be/mppJxR5wPCwIsn't that the same link.It goes to jon stewert again,at least on my browser.

[Guest]

Unless the gov owns the bakery, it IS a private bakery. It is a privately owned business, is it not? I am sure that these owners will not be hurt too greatly by gays boycotting their bakeries.

And this is not JUST related to bakeries. It has to do with allowing cross dressing perverts into opposite gender restrooms. If gays want to boycott those states that want to accommodate the majority view, then I say "adios amigas." And don't let the speed limit hinder you when passing through the state.The business owner does not want to do business with gays because of religious reasons. Isn't that what this is all about? Isn't that discrimination?

[Guest]

The business owner does not want to do business with gays because of religious reasons. Isn't that what this is all about? Isn't that discrimination?

A business owner should choose whom he will and won't do business with. It's not up to you to decide. Find someone who will do business with you. If you can't, well, maybe the problem IS you. Unless they're doing VERY well, no business is going to turn away business unless it's important enough to them.

[Guest]

A business owner should choose whom he will and won't do business with. It's not up to you to decide. Find someone who will do business with you. If you can't, well, maybe the problem IS you. Unless they're doing VERY well, no business is going to turn away business unless it's important enough to them.

So, YOU would allow restaurants, hotels, or grocery stores to put signs in their windows saying, "Whites Only"?

[Guest]

The business owner does not want to do business with gays because of religious reasons. Isn't that what this is all about? Isn't that discrimination?

You want your rights, how about their rights? Just because a business is "open to the public", doesn't mean it should lose it's right to self determination. It should be able to choose its customers with the freedom you have to choose a business to work for you. A business can turn down a customer for many reasons, one of them should be simply...I don't like you.

Why should you have the "right" to choose, but they don't? Afraid you'd be left out in the cold? If nobody wants to do business with you, it's probably you that needs changing.

[Guest]

So, YOU would allow restaurants, hotels, or grocery stores to put signs in their windows saying, "Whites Only"?

If that's what they decide, yes. Why not? Why do you think you have a right to force someone to do business with you? They don't have the right to force you to do business with them.

Don't like it? Open your own restaurant, hotel, or store. YOU go through the risk and hassles of owning a business if you don't like how they run it. I bet the "white only" store does better than the "diversified" store. Thefts alone would make a difference. What neighborhoods businesses are more successful? White? Or black? It's a no-brainer that a business would prefer white only. Blacks are equal right? The government will give them a SBL to get started. So why don't they succeed?

I'm a libertarian at heart. I believe I should control my own life and as long as I don't bother others, I should be free to make my own decisions, my own choices. I also believe you live with your choices. Your neighbors decide what kind of a person you are and what they'll tolerate.

[Guest]

If that's what they decide, yes. Why not? Why do you think you have a right to force someone to do business with you? They don't have the right to force you to do business with them.

Don't like it? Open your own restaurant, hotel, or store. YOU go through the risk and hassles of owning a business if you don't like how they run it. I bet the "white only" store does better than the "diversified" store. Thefts alone would make a difference. What neighborhoods businesses are more successful? White? Or black? It's a no-brainer that a business would prefer white only. Blacks are equal right? The government will give them a SBL to get started. So why don't they succeed?

I'm a libertarian at heart. I believe I should control my own life and as long as I don't bother others, I should be free to make my own decisions, my own choices. I also believe you live with your choices. Your neighbors decide what kind of a person you are and what they'll tolerate.

Some of you take note that one can have a very strong, passionate opinion and beleif and state it without the need to call others names or disparage the opposition.

Try it and see what a difference it makes where and how you are listened to by others.

[Guest]

If that's what they decide, yes. Why not? Why do you think you have a right to force someone to do business with you? They don't have the right to force you to do business with them.

Don't like it? Open your own restaurant, hotel, or store. YOU go through the risk and hassles of owning a business if you don't like how they run it. I bet the "white only" store does better than the "diversified" store. Thefts alone would make a difference. What neighborhoods businesses are more successful? White? Or black? It's a no-brainer that a business would prefer white only. Blacks are equal right? The government will give them a SBL to get started. So why don't they succeed?

I'm a libertarian at heart. I believe I should control my own life and as long as I don't bother others, I should be free to make my own decisions, my own choices. I also believe you live with your choices. Your neighbors decide what kind of a person you are and what they'll tolerate.

Regress back into the Jim Crow days. I would really be worried about the people who post this garbage on The Villahes forum IF I actually believed they meant it - instead of trying to "get our goat".

Remember that people who may want to move here will read this crap and some may take it seriously instead of realizing the spoofing. It will possibly detract the good people from moving here OR possibly attract MORE nut jobs with KKK ideals.

[Guest]

Regress back into the Jim Crow days. I would really be worried about the people who post this garbage on The Villahes forum IF I actually believed they meant it - instead of trying to "get our goat".

Remember that people who may want to move here will read this crap and some may take it seriously instead of realizing the spoofing. It will possibly detract the good people from moving here OR possibly attract MORE nut jobs with KKK ideals.

So you are advocating, insuating or stating that if one does not go along with the permissiveness of the day they are presenting a negative?

Does that mean freedom of speech has been re-defined? Go along or you are a bad person?

To the point that you think if some have that differing opinion it will affect who buys in TV.....:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You can go to the head of the class for drinking the most kool aide and making a fool of ones self and think it is the right thing to do!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

I go away for 2 hours for golf and I missed all the fireworks. I need to golf more often.

[Guest]

So you are advocating, insuating or stating that if one does not go along with the permissiveness of the day they are presenting a negative?

Does that mean freedom of speech has been re-defined? Go along or you are a bad person?

To the point that you think if some have that differing opinion it will affect who buys in TV.....:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You can go to the head of the class for drinking the most kool aide and making a fool of ones self and think it is the right thing to do!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl:

I think that what he's trying to say is "you are an embarrassment to the Villages". He's worried your thoughts and opinions, no matter how illogical they may be, will attract more ignorant racists.

[Guest]

I go away for 2 hours for golf and I missed all the fireworks. I need to golf more often.This is mone too--so you don't think I'm going Sybal on you.

There is a practical side to this argument. Suppose the restaurant sign said "No Catholics" and I walk in there with my First Holy Communion book in one hand and my Rosary in the other. Do I really want the chef, the baker, the owner fixing my food and his son the waiter delivering my food?

I've eaten with big mouths that send food back for one reason or another and I wonder.

[Guest]

So, YOU would allow restaurants, hotels, or grocery stores to put signs in their windows saying, "Whites Only"?

Good point but it may be wasted on the poster.

[Guest]

I think that what he's trying to say is "you are an embarrassment to the Villages". He's worried your thoughts and opinions, no matter how illogical they may be, will attract more ignorant racists.

Typical knee jerk, talking point type response to ANYTHING not in line with the posters positions/opinions.
Never any surprises....very repetitive...no value what so ever...and always....ALWAYS..... ignore the opportunity for non name calling, disparaging dialogue.

One begins to think there is no such capability for many.
What a shame!

[Guest]

Regress back into the Jim Crow days. I would really be worried about the people who post this garbage on The Villahes forum IF I actually believed they meant it - instead of trying to "get our goat".

Remember that people who may want to move here will read this crap and some may take it seriously instead of realizing the spoofing. It will possibly detract the good people from moving here OR possibly attract MORE nut jobs with KKK ideals.

Well, we have to do something! What we're doing now certainly isn't working. The US has gone from the top, the best, to middle of the road, and it's because of ONE thing, we've lowered the standards for women and minorities. It can't be argued with. PLEASE, show me I'm wrong, don't just tell me.

I go away for 2 hours for golf and I missed all the fireworks. I need to golf more often.

What does it matter? What do you bring to the discussion? This comment? We were all on the edge of our seats waiting for your infinite wisdom, and THIS is what we get?

This is mone too--so you don't think I'm going Sybal on you.

There is a practical side to this argument. Suppose the restaurant sign said "No Catholics" and I walk in there with my First Holy Communion book in one hand and my Rosary in the other. Do I really want the chef, the baker, the owner fixing my food and his son the waiter delivering my food?

I've eaten with big mouths that send food back for one reason or another and I wonder.

NO need to wonder. I don't even want to imagine what was in that wedding cake those gays forced a bakery to make for them.

Typical knee jerk, talking point type response to ANYTHING not in line with the posters positions/opinions.
Never any surprises....very repetitive...no value what so ever...and always....ALWAYS..... ignore the opportunity for non name calling, disparaging dialogue.

One begins to think there is no such capability for many.
What a shame!

They have no other recourse, ALL the facts show they are wrong. Go to a 99.9% black area, tell me it's just like the villages. They're Hypocrites too. Fight for diversity as they live in their 99.9% white safe zone bubble.

[Guest]

So, YOU would allow restaurants, hotels, or grocery stores to put signs in their windows saying, "Whites Only"?

There are NO "white" gays?? Interesting.

[Guest]

So you are advocating, insuating or stating that if one does not go along with the permissiveness of the day they are presenting a negative?

Does that mean freedom of speech has been re-defined? Go along or you are a bad person?

To the point that you think if some have that differing opinion it will affect who buys in TV.....:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You can go to the head of the class for drinking the most kool aide and making a fool of ones self and think it is the right thing to do!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl:

:agree:

[Guest]

Regress back into the Jim Crow days. I would really be worried about the people who post this garbage on The Villahes forum IF I actually believed they meant it - instead of trying to "get our goat".

Remember that people who may want to move here will read this crap and some may take it seriously instead of realizing the spoofing. It will possibly detract the good people from moving here OR possibly attract MORE nut jobs with KKK ideals.

If this keeps the perverts/abnormal sexual deviants out of the villages, OK. :thumbup:

[Guest]

This is mone too--so you don't think I'm going Sybal on you.

There is a practical side to this argument. Suppose the restaurant sign said "No Catholics" and I walk in there with my First Holy Communion book in one hand and my Rosary in the other. Do I really want the chef, the baker, the owner fixing my food and his son the waiter delivering my food?

I've eaten with big mouths that send food back for one reason or another and I wonder.

I like watching when there is a meltdown. That's all I meant.

You are making my point. Be careful who you hate if you are ordering food from them or they are working in the kitchen. I bake my own cakes.

[Guest]

If this keeps the perverts/abnormal sexual deviants out of the villages, OK. :thumbup:

Maybe you should volunteer as a guest speaker at The Villages Rainbow Club. I am sure they would be most happy to hear your views.

[Guest]

If this keeps the perverts/abnormal sexual deviants out of the villages, OK. :thumbup:

To late.....we are already here!

[Guest]

To late.....we are already here!

:coolsmiley: :boom:

[Guest]

Maybe you should volunteer as a guest speaker at The Villages Rainbow Club. I am sure they would be most happy to hear your views.

Why would I be interested in speaking at a gathering of deviants? Wouldn't that be an endorsement?

[Guest]

To late.....we are already here!

That's great, the first step to recovery....admitting that you have an illness.

[Guest]

Posts 58 and 59 were posted 3 minutes apart at 4:43 and 4:46 a.m.

What is the possibility that we have an early rising loon writing to himself - and we know exactly who he is?

[Guest]

Posts 58 and 59 were posted 3 minutes apart at 4:43 and 4:46 a.m.

What is the possibility that we have an early rising loon writing to himself - and we know exactly who he is?
58 addresses one post,
59 addresses a different post----
How can you conclude the person is talking to themselves?

And just because he or she is up at that hour what difference does that make?
Maybe they are taking care of someone who is ill?

I don't know who it is so who are you including in we.

[Guest]

58 addresses one post,
59 addresses a different post----
How can you conclude the person is talking to themselves?

And just because he or she is up at that hour what difference does that make?
Maybe they are taking care of someone who is ill?

I don't know who it is so who are you including in we.

The WE that he is including himself in, is Sybil the multi-personas liberal on here that trolls consistently, rather than addressing the subject. He is guilty, as pointed out many times of agreeing with and responding to his own posts because many times, no one else will take his bait. Pitiful little fella, that even takes on a female persona when his responses are questioned. Not that it is important, just an observation. He tries to accuse others of doing the same thing that he does because he can't understand why there isn't anyone else that will applaud his half attempt at wit.
;;;;;;;;;;;

Sybil, for your edification, I was the one that replied to both of those posts.....different posts, neither being authored by myself. And the reason, if any of your business for me being up early is that I am an early riser, and because I also tend to our pets. Not that my quantity of sleep should concern you. I have always been an early riser.

If you feel the need for any further personal information, just take some more wild guesses and fill in the blanks. What you believe or not is of little interest to me.

[Guest]

The WE that he is including himself in, is Sybil the multi-personas liberal on here that trolls consistently, rather than addressing the subject. He is guilty, as pointed out many times of agreeing with and responding to his own posts because many times, no one else will take his bait. Pitiful little fella, that even takes on a female persona when his responses are questioned. Not that it is important, just an observation. He tries to accuse others of doing the same thing that he does because he can't understand why there isn't anyone else that will applaud his half attempt at wit.
;;;;;;;;;;;

Sybil, for your edification, I was the one that replied to both of those posts.....different posts, neither being authored by myself. And the reason, if any of your business for me being up early is that I am an early riser, and because I also tend to our pets. Not that my quantity of sleep should concern you. I have always been an early riser.

If you feel the need for any further personal information, just take some more wild guesses and fill in the blanks. What you believe or not is of little interest to me.You totally lost me.
I'm the guy you think has a multiple personality disorder.

I was defending someone's right to post anytime of the day and giving a logical reason why someone could answer 2 posts in a row a couple of minutes apart and not be talking to themselves.

Tell me the posts that you think I made and I'll tell you if it's me or not. Why in the world would I lie? I'm going on a bike ride and will check in later. TOTV is what I do when I'm bored.

[Guest]

You totally lost me.
I'm the guy you think has a multiple personality disorder.

I was defending someone's right to post anytime of the day and giving a logical reason why someone could answer 2 posts in a row a couple of minutes apart and not be talking to themselves.

Tell me the posts that you think I made and I'll tell you if it's me or not. Why in the world would I lie? I'm going on a bike ride and will check in later. TOTV is what I do when I'm bored.

First off, I responded to you in the first part of the post. Then I used a post divider to reply to Sybil the liberal in the second half of the post. If you were confused, then I will take the blame for that confusion. But, I think that now that I explained my intention, you can go back and read my post and see that I had no intention of disparaging you. At any rate, my bad.

[Guest]

First off, I responded to you in the first part of the post. Then I used a post divider to reply to Sybil the liberal in the second half of the post. If you were confused, then I will take the blame for that confusion. But, I think that now that I explained my intention, you can go back and read my post and see that I had no intention of disparaging you. At any rate, my bad.
Still lost.
I am the one you are maliciously and falsely claiming has a multiple personality disorder.

[Guest]

I assume that you replied to post #60, with yours #61.. If you read post #62, that was my post referencing what you replied to when you replied to post #60. I assume that post #60 was not you, or you would have been responding to yourself. The first half of my post was to you, not the second part. The second part was directed toward the one that you responded to. I did use some characters to separate the two parts. Got it? The second part was not directed at you.

[Guest]

I assume that you replied to post #60, with yours #61.. If you read post #62, that was my post referencing what you replied to when you replied to post #60. I assume that post #60 was not you, or you would have been responding to yourself. The first half of my post was to you, not the second part. The second part was directed toward the one that you responded to. I did use some characters to separate the two parts. Got it? The second part was not directed at you.

This is beginning to sound like an Abbot and Costello bit. :posting:

[Guest]

A business owner should choose whom he will and won't do business with. It's not up to you to decide. Find someone who will do business with you. If you can't, well, maybe the problem IS you. Unless they're doing VERY well, no business is going to turn away business unless it's important enough to them.

With that type of thinking, the business owner could refuse to serve anyone. Like it was before 1964. You must have loved South Africa during apartied.

[Guest]

That's great, the first step to recovery....admitting that you have an illness.

Nah...they took it out the DSM years ago!

You must have missed that...you might also have missed that the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court granted us the right to marry!

I married my partner on our 27th anniversary.

Get over it.....the 1950's are long gone!!!!

[Guest]

If that's what they decide, yes. Why not? Why do you think you have a right to force someone to do business with you? They don't have the right to force you to do business with them.

Don't like it? Open your own restaurant, hotel, or store. YOU go through the risk and hassles of owning a business if you don't like how they run it. I bet the "white only" store does better than the "diversified" store. Thefts alone would make a difference. What neighborhoods businesses are more successful? White? Or black? It's a no-brainer that a business would prefer white only. Blacks are equal right? The government will give them a SBL to get started. So why don't they succeed?

I'm a libertarian at heart. I believe I should control my own life and as long as I don't bother others, I should be free to make my own decisions, my own choices. I also believe you live with your choices. Your neighbors decide what kind of a person you are and what they'll tolerate.

So perhaps you didn't read or take in the post on "Public Accommodation? If you are open to the PUBLIC you can't refuse service!

[Guest]

If you're religious, you've been brainwashed. I mean really, God watches over everything and knows everything...about us? Really?

If anything, we're his dissertation on infectious lifeforms on otherwise pristine planets.

Based on my many hours of reading the posts on this area of TOV I have concluded that it is Hillary , Bill and the current guy who are Omnipotent and always watching over us .

Isn`t that how it works . Elect a Dem as President and " all will be OK Johnny and Mary ".

[Guest]

With that type of thinking, the business owner could refuse to serve anyone. Like it was before 1964. You must have loved South Africa during apartied.

Yes and yes.

A business SHOULD be able to refuse service to anyone he pleases. Why would he unless for a good reason? It hits his bottom line. But in the long run, maybe it IS in his best interest because of less problem customers. If YOU have a choice in which business to use, shouldn't the business also have a choice in it's customer?

I guess you don't know much about South Africa. It was a MUCH better place then than now.

Is This The End of South Africa? | The Truth About South Africa (http://thetruthaboutsouthafrica.org/radio-interviews/the-end-of-south-africa/)
70,000 Whites Murdered in (http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/)
https://africacheck.org/reports/is-sa-worse-off-now-than-19-years-ago-the-facts-behind-that-facebook-post/

[Guest]

Nah...they took it out the DSM years ago!

You must have missed that...you might also have missed that the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court granted us the right to marry!

I married my partner on our 27th anniversary.

Get over it.....the 1950's are long gone!!!!

Took it out for political reasons. No "discovery", no reason other than pressure. Blackmail is my guess.

The 50s was the peak for this nation morally and socially. We've been on a steady slide towards 3rd worldism since. Minority children are the next baby boom, they'll change everything as the baby boomers did, NOT for the better...believe me.

And the whole "gay thing". You have a same sex fetish. Unfortunately, you suffered a developmental birth defect. I'm sorry. I'll never condone your deviance. I find the thought of same sex sex revolting. But you have to keep throwing it in my face. We'll all be dead in another 30 years, you've brainwashed the kids to accept all kinds of "diversity". You got your way. Congratulations.

So perhaps you didn't read or take in the post on "Public Accommodation? If you are open to the PUBLIC you can't refuse service!

That's just a BS law made by politicians who steal from taxpayers and take graft for a living. A law doesn't make it "right". If I have a business, I should be able to choose my customer just as a customer can/doesn't choose me. You can think what you want, but to me a business owner doesn't become a slave with no choice when he hangs an open sign. And that's what you want. YOU get all the choices...they have to obey.

[Guest]

Yes and yes.

A business SHOULD be able to refuse service to anyone he pleases. Why would he unless for a good reason? It hits his bottom line. But in the long run, maybe it IS in his best interest because of less problem customers. If YOU have a choice in which business to use, shouldn't the business also have a choice in it's customer?

I guess you don't know much about South Africa. It was a MUCH better place then than now.

Is This The End of South Africa? | The Truth About South Africa (http://thetruthaboutsouthafrica.org/radio-interviews/the-end-of-south-africa/)
70,000 Whites Murdered in (http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/)
https://africacheck.org/reports/is-sa-worse-off-now-than-19-years-ago-the-facts-behind-that-facebook-post/

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes a section on Public Accommodation. As well as the ADA in 1990.

There was a good example of this principle earlier in this thread.

But here is the lawsuit explanation:BORNE vs. HAVERHILL GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 306 (http://masscases.com/cases/app/58/58massappct306.html)

But in a nutshell if you own a business that serves the PUBLIC then you cannot refuse service to the public.

[Guest]

Unless the gov owns the bakery, it IS a private bakery. It is a privately owned business, is it not? I am sure that these owners will not be hurt too greatly by gays boycotting their bakeries.

And this is not JUST related to bakeries. It has to do with allowing cross dressing perverts into opposite gender restrooms. If gays want to boycott those states that want to accommodate the majority view, then I say "adios amigas." And don't let the speed limit hinder you when passing through the state.

Actually, no! You may own the business but if you hang a sign in the window OPEN then you must accept whoever walks through that door. If you are a photographer and you advertise in the yellow pages then you must accommodate the public....

So my partner and I invited our closest friends and family to a Sunday Brunch at a very fancy hotel for our 20th anniversary. We wanted a photographer to take pictures, I looked in the Yellow Pages and called the first person on the list. I explained what I wanted and when and asked if he was available. He said yes and then I said do you have any objections to gays. He said no and I hired him.

I wouldn't have wanted someone who didn't want to be there! Would you?

[Guest]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes a section on Public Accommodation. As well as the ADA in 1990.

There was a good example of this principle earlier in this thread.

But here is the lawsuit explanation:BORNE vs. HAVERHILL GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 306 (http://masscases.com/cases/app/58/58massappct306.html)

But in a nutshell if you own a business that serves the PUBLIC then you cannot refuse service to the public.

I was the OP for this subject matter that one poster described as me being "high and mighty"when my only purpose was to have civil discourse on an issue that strikes at the very fabric of our lives.

The assault on religious freedom/liberty fundamentally affects us all because despite your political views it is an affront and an intrusion by a government that slice by slice takes away all freedoms. Indeed government is clever on how they package such assaults.

One poster likened the gay issue with the black issue but they are nothing alike but they are packaged alike.

the problem with this entire civil rights issue and accommodation issue is people go overboard with it. Its one thing to say people have legal rights its quite another for the government to decide who should be more equal than others.

The civil rights act went over board with its affirmative action program forced integration. the gay issue has gone so over board they are pushing their life style as preferred. The elimination of gender nouns, homosexual acts abound on prime time TV intentionally as a means of normalization and socialization/ Young kids coming of age are vulnerable to these suggestions depicting gay sex as cool and exciting

I had to deal with public accommodation affirmative action etc and what I found were unreasonable demands by people and government

I believe in live let live but in today's America the abnormal are defining the new normal and in my humble view its not working out very well. so the last bastion of traditional normal is Christianity meaning religious beliefs of nuclear family as the basis of a society and all that flows from it and that threatens the new normal

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I was the OP for this subject matter that one poster described as me being "high and mighty"when my only purpose was to have civil discourse on an issue that strikes at the very fabric of our lives.

The assault on religious freedom/liberty fundamentally affects us all because despite your political views it is an affront and an intrusion by a government that slice by slice takes away all freedoms. Indeed government is clever on how they package such assaults.

One poster likened the gay issue with the black issue but they are nothing alike but they are packaged alike.

the problem with this entire civil rights issue and accommodation issue is people go overboard with it. Its one thing to say people have legal rights its quite another for the government to decide who should be more equal than others.

The civil rights act went over board with its affirmative action program forced integration. the gay issue has gone so over board they are pushing their life style as preferred. The elimination of gender nouns, homosexual acts abound on prime time TV intentionally as a means of normalization and socialization/ Young kids coming of age are vulnerable to these suggestions depicting gay sex as cool and exciting

I had to deal with public accommodation affirmative action etc and what I found were unreasonable demands by people and government

I believe in live let live but in today's America the abnormal are defining the new normal and in my humble view its not working out very well. so the last bastion of traditional normal is Christianity meaning religious beliefs of nuclear family as the basis of a society and all that flows from it and that threatens the new normal

Personal Best Regards:

:agree:....:thumbup:

[Guest]

The left declares business owners who desire to abide by their personal and religious beliefs as criminals inflicting monetary fines and jail time. Isn't this what totalitarian states do? The left orchestrates boycotts to punish businesses that refute their agenda.

The left with an agenda of contempt, revenge and retribution demanding subordination of those that disagree with them and eschew reasonable requests for coming to a reasonable agreement on many issues.

Indeed Senator (D) Whitehouse move to declare climate change dissenters as criminals who must be indicted under the RICO act is one of a myraid of example. He has caught the ear of Obama and Obama's DOJ

This issue alone is more important than the noise coming from media about this election but continues to get pushed aside by the left because there is a thin veneer between the truth and the continue farce they heave at society.

Lefties are clever and artful dodger. Look at their mentors the Clintons, Obama, Schummer, Pelosi, Reid Dodd, Frank, the Senator? from Harlem that should be in jail for tax evasion , Sharpton,.........I better sop not enough room to finish the list of lefties

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The left declares business owners who desire to abide by their personal and religious beliefs as criminals inflicting monetary fines and jail time. Isn't this what totalitarian states do? The left orchestrates boycotts to punish businesses that refute their agenda.

The left with an agenda of contempt, revenge and retribution demanding subordination of those that disagree with them and eschew reasonable requests for coming to a reasonable agreement on many issues.

Indeed Senator (D) Whitehouse move to declare climate change dissenters as criminals who must be indicted under the RICO act is one of a myraid of example. He has caught the ear of Obama and Obama's DOJ

This issue alone is more important than the noise coming from media about this election but continues to get pushed aside by the left because there is a thin veneer between the truth and the continue farce they heave at society.

Lefties are clever and artful dodger. Look at their mentors the Clintons, Obama, Schummer, Pelosi, Reid Dodd, Frank, the Senator? from Harlem that should be in jail for tax evasion , Sharpton,.........I better sop not enough room to finish the list of lefties

Personal Best Regards:

:thumbup:

[Guest]

Took it out for political reasons. No "discovery", no reason other than pressure. Blackmail is my guess.

The 50s was the peak for this nation morally and socially. We've been on a steady slide towards 3rd worldism since. Minority children are the next baby boom, they'll change everything as the baby boomers did, NOT for the better...believe me.

And the whole "gay thing". You have a same sex fetish. Unfortunately, you suffered a developmental birth defect. I'm sorry. I'll never condone your deviance. I find the thought of same sex sex revolting. But you have to keep throwing it in my face. We'll all be dead in another 30 years, you've brainwashed the kids to accept all kinds of "diversity". You got your way. Congratulations.



That's just a BS law made by politicians who steal from taxpayers and take graft for a living. A law doesn't make it "right". If I have a business, I should be able to choose my customer just as a customer can/doesn't choose me. You can think what you want, but to me a business owner doesn't become a slave with no choice when he hangs an open sign. And that's what you want. YOU get all the choices...they have to obey.

I personally have NEVER thrown anything IN YOUR FACE!

I make every attempt in my life to follow the laws in this country. If you don't then you are anarchist. The Republican party can't govern even with control of both the House and the Senate. You seem to hate everything!

[Guest]

I personally have NEVER thrown anything IN YOUR FACE!

I make every attempt in my life to follow the laws in this country. If you don't then you are anarchist. The Republican party can't govern even with control of both the House and the Senate. You seem to hate everything!

So, ALL Republicans "hate everything?" How does that sound to you? Does that sound normal to you? If I said ALL Democrats are liberal, or communists, would you agree with me? I am not the one that you are responding to, but you included me in your generalizing of Republicans.

[Guest]

I agree with NC.

I believe that if you have male plumbing you must use the male restroom and same with female plumbing using female restrooms. If you are gender confused, look down. If you can stand up to urinate, then you use the male restroom.

I believe that if you own a bakery, you should sell your cakes to gays, period. I do not believe that the gov should mandate that you go against your religion and provide a gay themed cake or cater to a gay wedding if that is against your faith. I think that is taking it too far with gov mandate. If I owned a store with a magazine stand, I would not sell porno. Would I be sued for that? But, I would sell my products to the abnormal. If I refused to sell gay magazines, could I be sued, or would I be sued?

I believe that if I owned a bakery and posted a sign that stated that all are welcome in my store but I refuse to bake deviant themed cakes or cater to a gay wedding, no one would be able to sue me. If so, then I bet I could beat it in court.

[Guest]

So, ALL Republicans "hate everything?" How does that sound to you? Does that sound normal to you? If I said ALL Democrats are liberal, or communists, would you agree with me? I am not the one that you are responding to, but you included me in your generalizing of Republicans.

I have, on this site, been continually called a libtard even though I am a moderate. I said that once, then came the post saying "There are no Moderate Democrats."

So I am sorry my post offended you! I will correct my statement:

Given the verbal combat on this site, the inability of the Republican congress to pass anything, the amount of anger at Trump rallies, including violence....it would appear that some Republicans have anger issues.

[Guest]

I agree with NC.

I believe that if you have male plumbing you must use the male restroom and same with female plumbing using female restrooms. If you are gender confused, look down. If you can stand up to urinate, then you use the male restroom.

I believe that if you own a bakery, you should sell your cakes to gays, period. I do not believe that the gov should mandate that you go against your religion and provide a gay themed cake or cater to a gay wedding if that is against your faith. I think that is taking it too far with gov mandate. If I owned a store with a magazine stand, I would not sell porno. Would I be sued for that? But, I would sell my products to the abnormal. If I refused to sell gay magazines, could I be sued, or would I be sued?

I believe that if I owned a bakery and posted a sign that stated that all are welcome in my store but I refuse to bake deviant themed cakes or cater to a gay wedding, no one would be able to sue me. If so, then I bet I could beat it in court.

That one has already gone to court:

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/29/oregon-bakery-owners-pay-more-than-135g-in-damages-over-refusal-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding.html)

[Guest]

I was the OP for this subject matter that one poster described as me being "high and mighty"when my only purpose was to have civil discourse on an issue that strikes at the very fabric of our lives.

The assault on religious freedom/liberty fundamentally affects us all because despite your political views it is an affront and an intrusion by a government that slice by slice takes away all freedoms. Indeed government is clever on how they package such assaults.

One poster likened the gay issue with the black issue but they are nothing alike but they are packaged alike.

the problem with this entire civil rights issue and accommodation issue is people go overboard with it. Its one thing to say people have legal rights its quite another for the government to decide who should be more equal than others.

The civil rights act went over board with its affirmative action program forced integration. the gay issue has gone so over board they are pushing their life style as preferred. The elimination of gender nouns, homosexual acts abound on prime time TV intentionally as a means of normalization and socialization/ Young kids coming of age are vulnerable to these suggestions depicting gay sex as cool and exciting

I had to deal with public accommodation affirmative action etc and what I found were unreasonable demands by people and government

I believe in live let live but in today's America the abnormal are defining the new normal and in my humble view its not working out very well. so the last bastion of traditional normal is Christianity meaning religious beliefs of nuclear family as the basis of a society and all that flows from it and that threatens the new normal

Personal Best Regards:

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

[Guest]

I personally have NEVER thrown anything IN YOUR FACE!

I make every attempt in my life to follow the laws in this country. If you don't then you are anarchist. The Republican party can't govern even with control of both the House and the Senate. You seem to hate everything!

If you've been gay, having gay sex, you didn't follow the laws. States had laws against perversion, sodomy, homosexuality, etc. You didn't make EVERY attempt to follow the laws. You're a relativist, like everyone else. You pick and choose what laws you'll obey. I'm a relativist.

The gay community at large throws "gayness" in our face. Are we 10 having a discussion next to the swings? That's the trouble with "you groups" who want to change things. You're dishonest. You deceive. You lie to get your way. You blackmail. It belongs in the DSM.

[Guest]

I believe that if I owned a bakery and posted a sign that stated that all are welcome in my store but I refuse to bake deviant themed cakes or cater to a gay wedding, no one would be able to sue me. If so, then I bet I could beat it in court.


The linked article from Fox did not make any mention of the wedding cake being a deviant design but just the bakery owners refused service to a lesbian couple.

I totally agree you would not be in legal jeopardy if you would not bake a cake in the shape of a sexual organ. If the couple provided a miniature couple of the same sex for a cake topper, would that be any big issue? No. Or the baker could just request they put the topper on themselves. No problem.

Issues can always be worked out by reasonable people!

[Guest]

If you've been gay, having gay sex, you didn't follow the laws. States had laws against perversion, sodomy, homosexuality, etc. You didn't make EVERY attempt to follow the laws. You're a relativist, like everyone else. You pick and choose what laws you'll obey. I'm a relativist.

The gay community at large throws "gayness" in our face. Are we 10 having a discussion next to the swings? That's the trouble with "you groups" who want to change things. You're dishonest. You deceive. You lie to get your way. You blackmail. It belongs in the DSM.

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

[Guest]

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

I doubt that his wife and he paraded it about in the streets though. Don't you think that your deviant nature would be tolerated a bit easier if the abnormal behavior wasn't shoved in everyone's faces. I preferred not to view the 50 Shades of Gray movie also, and it wasn't forced on me.

[Guest]

The linked article from Fox did not make any mention of the wedding cake being a deviant design but just the bakery owners refused service to a lesbian couple.

I totally agree you would not be in legal jeopardy if you would not bake a cake in the shape of a sexual organ. If the couple provided a miniature couple of the same sex for a cake topper, would that be any big issue? No. Or the baker could just request they put the topper on themselves. No problem.

Issues can always be worked out by reasonable people!

To be honest with you, I am not sure of the circumstances of the court case. However, I was under the impression that they refused to cater to the gay wedding and refused to make the gay wedding cake. Selling to gays wasn't the issue, as I recall from the version that I got.

[Guest]

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

"A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed."

Key word "PRIVATE." Keep your abnormal, deviant nature PRIVATE. It's called decency.

[Guest]

I doubt that his wife and he paraded it about in the streets though. Don't you think that your deviant nature would be tolerated a bit easier if the abnormal behavior wasn't shoved in everyone's faces. I preferred not to view the 50 Shades of Gray movie also, and it wasn't forced on me.

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

You must be joking about 50 Shades of Grey.

You are now safely in the minority!

[Guest]

"A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed."

Key word "PRIVATE." Keep your abnormal, deviant nature PRIVATE. It's called decency.

Once again an uninformed person.....

The men in this case were having private intimate conduct but then the police came.

Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).”

Wrong again....

[Guest]

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-68-younger-lover-49-caught-sex-florida-retirement-community-town-square-article-1.1822375)

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villagers-arrested-sex-morse-blvd-el-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Get a room

[Guest]

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-68-younger-lover-49-caught-sex-florida-retirement-community-town-square-article-1.1822375)

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villagers-arrested-sex-morse-blvd-el-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Get a room

Link for the blacked out one:

Public Sex Again In The Villages | Trap Shooters Forum (http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/public-sex-again-in-the-villages.228842/)

[Guest]

Issues can always be worked out by reasonable people!

Is it reasonable to force someone to do something they don't want/are uncomfortable doing? The gay people were the unreasonable ones. FORCING the bakers to do something they didn't want/felt comfortable doing. Maybe for religious reasons. It doesn't matter, YOUR rights END when it affects MY rights. An "open" sign doesn't/shouldn't mean you MUST do whatever a customer wants.

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.



But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

[Guest]

Is it reasonable to force someone to do something they don't want/are uncomfortable doing? The gay people were the unreasonable ones. FORCING the bakers to do something they didn't want/felt comfortable doing. Maybe for religious reasons. It doesn't matter, YOUR rights END when it affects MY rights. An "open" sign doesn't/shouldn't mean you MUST do whatever a customer wants.



I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.



But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

It appears I hit a nerve....But you are swinging at multiple targets.

I am the one that called that called the photographer and asked if he had any issues before I hired him. So on that point you are very wrong.

On the rest there is no reason to continue with this as you can no longer be civil.

[Guest]

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-68-younger-lover-49-caught-sex-florida-retirement-community-town-square-article-1.1822375)

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villagers-arrested-sex-morse-blvd-el-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Get a room

Yes, and that couple was charged with a crime. What are you attempting to say? By the looks of your post, you seem to be a troubled person. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

Not related to the subject, but considering that we have an over hundred thousand resident community and the squares are open to the public, we have little crime. When you consider how close we are to Orlando, that's pretty nice.

[Guest]

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

[Guest]

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Yes, and that couple was charged with a crime. What are you attempting to say? By the looks of your post, you seem to be a troubled person. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

Not related to the subject, but considering that we have an over hundred thousand resident community and the squares are open to the public, we have little crime. When you consider how close we are to Orlando, that's pretty nice.

We have little crime because of our demographics, affluent white people. That is the ONLY reason. As we "diversify" the crime will increase, it ALWAYS does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Encourage a bunch of idiots to believe in an invisible man in space who controls everything? Why?

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

[Guest]

We have little crime because of our demographics, affluent white people. That is the ONLY reason. As we "diversify" the crime will increase, it ALWAYS does.



Encourage a bunch of idiots to believe in an invisible man in space who controls everything? Why?



They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

Who said that we believe in a "man in space"??? I won't go into religion or faith with you, because it is obvious that you are a very disturbed and angry person. Although, if I had no faith I guess I would be angry and disturbed also.

[Guest]

Who said that we believe in a "man in space"??? I won't go into religion or faith with you, because it is obvious that you are a very disturbed and angry person. Although, if I had no faith I guess I would be angry and disturbed also.

Yes, awareness is a curse. Oh to be naive living in an ignorant bliss...I envy you sometimes. But that isn't going to get me to believe in your "God" whom IF real and as omnificent as you say/think he/it is, is doing a really poor job of running things. I'd say we need new management.

When you're ready to talk, I'll be here to tear you apart. I'm not angry, just occasionally frustrated with the ignorant rabble who believe the lies and deception. It's tough to shake when they start the brainwashing when you're a helpless infant.

I wish you enlightenment...if you can handle it...otherwise, remain where you are, some people need an authority figure to follow. I'd rather be that figure than follow one...but that's just me.

Enjoy your day

[Guest]

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

Ah yes, Sunday morning and Mr. High and Mighty is up to his moral rantings once more. All we can say is :blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah:.

[Guest]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.SH4AOESY.dpuf)

[Guest]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.SH4AOESY.dpuf)

It also does not state that there should be a falling all over the majority to provide for unearned benefits of special interest or minority groups.

[Guest]

It also does not state that there should be a falling all over the majority to provide for unearned benefits of special interest or minority groups.

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

[Guest]

They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

This is what I said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

This is what you said

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

This what I said:


Originally Posted by Guest View Post

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

This is what you said

But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

You wouldn't know this but my home state struck down sodomy laws in 1971....15 years in advance of when I would have been breaking them.

You called me a liar multiple times....that was uncivil. I only respond to you this time because of the post that identified you.

[Guest]

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

Of course you jest!

[Guest]

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

I realize that you are not replying to me, but I thought I would inject an answer that should be an automatic response....."affirmative action." That is an UNEARNED BENEFIT.

[Guest]

Of course you jest!

Seriously I don't....what unearned benefits?

[Guest]

I realize that you are not replying to me, but I thought I would inject an answer that should be an automatic response....."affirmative action." That is an UNEARNED BENEFIT.

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

[Guest]

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

I believe the dolt means that gays are now guaranteed equal rights afforded to all groups - and he doesn't like equality for all.

He obviously thinks that equality for all applies only if you are white, straight, male, middle class or higher, Christian (not Jewish), and conservative.

[Guest]

I believe the dolt means that gays are now guaranteed equal rights afforded to all groups - and he doesn't like equality for all.

He obviously thinks that equality for all applies only if you are white, straight, male, middle class or higher, Christian (not Jewish), and conservative.

OK I got it now...to obtuse for me.

[Guest]

I think this thread has gotten off topic.....

So to return the Gov of North Carolina is trying amend the bill and the Gov of Louisiana is rescinding Bobby Jindal's Religious Freedom Law.

Gov. John Bel Edwards to Rescind Bobby Jindal's Horrific Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Order - The New Civil Rights Movement (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/louisiana_gov_john_bel_edwards_to_rescind_bobby_ji ndal_s_horrific_anti_gay_religious_freedom_order)

I really don't think supporters of these bill understand the concept of public accommodation. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple open a private bakery.

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

[Guest]

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

Wrong again.....

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/29/oregon-bakery-owners-pay-more-than-135g-in-damages-over-refusal-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding.html)

The Iowa case was about a wedding venue and the couple were men...

Iowa Wedding Venue Which Rejected Gay Couple Files Lawsuit Against State's Civil Rights Commission (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/iowa-gay-wedding-lawsuit-_n_4066241.html)

Both of these business were, at the time, open to the public. Therefore, under the ADA rules and Civil Rights law the owners had to provide public accommodation.

Posters here seem not to understand the law although it has been explained several times here.

[Guest]

Both of these business were, at the time, open to the public. Therefore, under the ADA rules and Civil Rights law the owners had to provide public accommodation.

Posters here seem not to understand the law although it has been explained several times here.

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

[Guest]

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

:agree:

[Guest]

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

The response was generalized, not specific to the "gay" issue. It was in response to post #107 "Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups." If that makes me a "dolt" for entering the conversation, then you do have a gay issue problem.

Perceived inequities in equal rights by gays are fictitious and not related to civil rights. Gays have always enjoyed the same equal rights as normal folks. The only issue that has been distorted is over gay marriage. And marriage should never have been a gov issue, when marriage has ALWAYS been religious in nature. And I do not know of any religion that supports gay marriage in it's doctrine. I do not know all the religions, but most American supported religious faiths tolerate but do not condone or support gay marriage. Most Americans do NOT condone homosexual deviancy but tolerate it, unless forced to have it shoved into their faces, an example being that ridiculous gay pride parade comedy which makes homosexuals look like clowns and not to be taken seriously.

Gays DO receive special consideration, when in truth their practice is deviant in nature and morality. One example of special consideration is the "hate crime" laws. A person can be assaulted, but if he is either gay or black, it's considered to be a "hate crime." Assault is an assault and motive does not make it more of an assault or less of an assault. For normals it's just an assault, but a minority or gay it's considered a special case deeming a special dispensation.

The majority of America tolerates gay behavior as an unwelcome psychological flaw that is harmless if kept between two of like mind and kept private, like ALL sexuality should be. Religious faiths do NOT condone homosexuality and do not appreciate forced acceptance to legitimatize what they consider a sinful nature. But, most faiths also take the approach of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Do not confuse tolerance with acceptance, because most states have voted against gay marriage in the past. Many have allowed civil unions though.

Libertarians believe that private business owners should be allowed the freedom to serve those of their choosing. Libertarians may not believe in discrimination but they also believe that it is an individual's right discriminate if they wish in their own privately owned business. Justifying it only in that it is privately owned and not a gov entity.

Personally, I believe that if I open a business to the public then if they ask for a product that I am selling, I should sell it to them. But, if they ask me to provide a service that is against my faith or belief, I should have the prerogative to decline. Example: If I sell cakes then I should sell to anyone entering my establishment. If I provide a catering service, then I should be able to decline service if it encompasses a perceived condoning of something adverse to my faith. If I am requested to provide a cake that indicates something that I deem despicable or deviant in nature, then I should be able to civilly decline. I see no problem with that. By catering to a gay wedding, then that could lead to the perception of condoning what Christians consider a sinful practice. Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.

[Guest]

Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.

They've had the kids brainwashed, they just need to wait for us older folks to die off and they'll have free reign. There is no sleeping tiger.

[Guest]

OK I got it now...to obtuse for me.

Soundspretty STRAIGHT to me!

[Guest]

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

Give me their phone number and I'll give them a call. What an idiot!

[Guest]

Soundspretty STRAIGHT to me!

:thumbup:

[Guest]

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

You realize we are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do you consider that law intrusive or unjust?

[Guest]

You realize we are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do you consider that law intrusive or unjust?

Only when it is abused or used by those in the group who trend to exploitation of the intent. Especially those who measure everything in terms of what they think is owed to them just because they are a member of that group.

And in our current mentality and permissive society we buckle to everything that is exploited. The only criteria seems to be if you are black you must be right!!

[Guest]

Especially those who measure everything in terms of what they think is owed to them just because they are a member of that group.

And in our current mentality and permissive society we buckle to everything that is exploited. The only criteria seems to be if you are black you must be right!!

...and we have our weekly winner of The Villages Tea Party "White Sheet With Matching Hood" award! It will be presented at the weekly cross burning ceremony. Congratulations!

[Guest]

...and we have our weekly winner of The Villages Tea Party "White Sheet With Matching Hood" award! It will be presented at the weekly cross burning ceremony. Congratulations!

How many times have you been awarded the Darwin award?

[Guest]

You realize we are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do you consider that law intrusive or unjust?

The Civil Rights Act 1964 was highly political, redundant and the over reaching by the federal government . Forced school integration, Affirmative Action programs and racial preference for college/university entry are/were intrusive and unjust. In essence all that flowed from the Civil Rights Act has been discriminatory in nature and as such an abridgment of every citizens rights. So yes the law was/is intrusive and the law was/is unjust.

Meantime the assault on religious freedom/liberty continues. The concerted effort by the gay community with a little help from their useful idiot friends in the news media, Hollywood etc continue intrusive and unjust demands of ordinary citizens accusing them of crimes . The economic pressure placed by them and their useful idiot is now taking its toll on corporations who do not want to get caught up in boycotts, etc. So now we have government telling citizens that can't practice their faith as they believe and corporations telling their employees via employee handbooks they can't practice their faith as they believe. An employee wrote in a newsletter that he quit Home Depot because of their support of Gay Pride Parades and would not participate. Were will all this end? But it will end badly.

One poster keeps referring to me as high and mighty and I cringe at the thought that whoever this poster is s/he can't see that what s/he calls high and mighty as my plea/prayer for clarity of mind concerning this subject matter. Because this government continues under the guise of "common good" to strip citizens of their freedoms and some of these unfortunates are applauding the government as they do

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

How many times have you been awarded the Darwin award?

He has won all the smart a$$ response awards so maybe the dribble put forth can go into another who gives a :censored: what he said category!

[Guest]

The Civil Rights Act 1964 was highly political, redundant and the over reaching by the federal government . Forced school integration, Affirmative Action programs and racial preference for college/university entry are/were intrusive and unjust. In essence all that flowed from the Civil Rights Act has been discriminatory in nature and as such an abridgment of every citizens rights. So yes the law was/is intrusive and the law was/is unjust.

Meantime the assault on religious freedom/liberty continues. The concerted effort by the gay community with a little help from their useful idiot friends in the news media, Hollywood etc continue intrusive and unjust demands of ordinary citizens accusing them of crimes . The economic pressure placed by them and their useful idiot is now taking its toll on corporations who do not want to get caught up in boycotts, etc. So now we have government telling citizens that can't practice their faith as they believe and corporations telling their employees via employee handbooks they can't practice their faith as they believe. An employee wrote in a newsletter that he quit Home Depot because of their support of Gay Pride Parades and would not participate. Were will all this end? But it will end badly.

One poster keeps referring to me as high and mighty and I cringe at the thought that whoever this poster is s/he can't see that what s/he calls high and mighty as my plea/prayer for clarity of mind concerning this subject matter. Because this government continues under the guise of "common good" to strip citizens of their freedoms and some of these unfortunates are applauding the government as they do

Personal Best Regards:

You and I have had some discussions on micro-aggression in the past. And I am not the poster you refer to above.
In my opinion, the micro-aggression movement is all about people, who in the past were subjected to discrimination, but now in the age of political correctness, have less and less injury. So now they have to create some... but now the tide is beginning to turn.

The Microaggression Farce | City Journal (http://www.city-journal.org/html/microaggression-farce-13679.html)

Microaggressions and the Rise of Victimhood Culture - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/)

By the same token Christianity has been the dominant religion in the United States for a long time however, that tide is turning as well. I don't see saying Season Greetings as contributing to the "War on Christmas".

I remember the Civil Rights movement in the 60's even though I was only 10ish at the time. No business now would even think of refusing service to a person of color.

I respect your right to Freedom of Religion but I fail to see how making a cake for a gay wedding, especially if it is picked up from a bakery, could impinge on your freedom of religion. I can understand how making a minster or priest officiate at a gay wedding is unreasonable.

At the time of the Civil Right Act people of color were subjected to discrimination in everyday life. In the 50's gays were hunted by the police, the military and even Congressional panels. I really fail to see how this act could be deemed over reach.

These are just my thoughts on the subject and are not aimed at anyone or any religion.

[Guest]

How many times have you been awarded the Darwin award?

The government keeps saving him and we get more and more just like him...should have been weeded out, but was protected and saved.

[Guest]

You and I have had some discussions on micro-aggression in the past. And I am not the poster you refer to above.
In my opinion, the micro-aggression movement is all about people, who in the past were subjected to discrimination, but now in the age of political correctness, have less and less injury. So now they have to create some... but now the tide is beginning to turn.

The Microaggression Farce | City Journal (http://www.city-journal.org/html/microaggression-farce-13679.html)

Microaggressions and the Rise of Victimhood Culture - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/)

By the same token Christianity has been the dominant religion in the United States for a long time however, that tide is turning as well. I don't see saying Season Greetings as contributing to the "War on Christmas".

I remember the Civil Rights movement in the 60's even though I was only 10ish at the time. No business now would even think of refusing service to a person of color.

I respect your right to Freedom of Religion but I fail to see how making a cake for a gay wedding, especially if it is picked up from a bakery, could impinge on your freedom of religion. I can understand how making a minster or priest officiate at a gay wedding is unreasonable.

At the time of the Civil Right Act people of color were subjected to discrimination in everyday life. In the 50's gays were hunted by the police, the military and even Congressional panels. I really fail to see how this act could be deemed over reach.

These are just my thoughts on the subject and are not aimed at anyone or any religion.

In the actual Cases which have been " created " to provoke the desired response . The Gay Couples involved were insisting that the Bakery be present at their Reception to ensure that the cake was safely delivered and presented at the appropriate time .

[Guest]

Give me their phone number and I'll give them a call. What an idiot!

Ok well here goes . One of my daughters was an International Figure Skating Competitor .
Most of her coaches , choreographers , music producers , costume makers ,
and off ice ballet coaches were Gay Men . Some of their names most people would recognize .
I spent may a long weekend in many rinks in the US and Canada sitting in the stands with them .
What I learned was that Gay Men do not care for Lesbians or Transgender people . When I asked them about the LGBT " Movement " they all said the same thing " political convenience " .
And believe me they use some very derogatory descriptors of any group of people who are Gay Women , Trans-sexual and as they call us " The Breeders " .
That was behind my point but hey what do I know ? As you said I am an " IDIOT ".
Because in your life experience you know far more than me .

[Guest]

Ok well here goes . One of my daughters was an International Figure Skating Competitor .
Most of her coaches , choreographers , music producers , costume makers ,
and off ice ballet coaches were Gay Men . Some of their names most people would recognize .
I spent may a long weekend in many rinks in the US and Canada sitting in the stands with them .
What I learned was that Gay Men do not care for Lesbians or Transgender people . When I asked them about the LGBT " Movement " they all said the same thing " political convenience " .
And believe me they use some very derogatory descriptors of any group of people who are Gay Women , Trans-sexual and as they call us " The Breeders " .
That was behind my point but hey what do I know ? As you said I am an " IDIOT ".
Because in your life experience you know far more than me .

That's the problem, most people with an opinion about something HEARD that opinion from someone else and have no real life experience.

[Guest]

In the actual Cases which have been " created " to provoke the desired response . The Gay Couples involved were insisting that the Bakery be present at their Reception to ensure that the cake was safely delivered and presented at the appropriate time .

After further review here are the actual facts of the case:

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

In Nov 2011 this couple purchased a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes for one of couples mother. There was no incident. In 2013 they went back to Sweet Cakes to order a wedding cake for themselves. When asked for the Bride and Grooms name the couple responded with 2 women's names. At that point the baker refused to bake the cake and called the women an "Abomination".

Is was in no way a make up case. I have included the actual ruling from the case.

Wherever you got your information it appears they misled you about the facts of the case. Perhaps you could provide a link to the source of your information for review.

[Guest]

After further review here are the actual facts of the case:

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

In Nov 2011 this couple purchased a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes for one of couples mother. There was no incident. In 2013 they went back to Sweet Cakes to order a wedding cake for themselves. When asked for the Bride and Grooms name the couple responded with 2 women's names. At that point the baker refused to bake the cake and called the women an "Abomination".

Is was in no way a make up case. I have included the actual ruling from the case.

Wherever you got your information it appears they misled you about the facts of the case. Perhaps you could provide a link to the source of your information for review.

He had or should have had every eight to say/do that. Some day the bar may be lowered so far that even YOU consider it too far. Should you be forced to work for someone you loathe?

[Guest]

He had or should have had every eight to say/do that. Some day the bar may be lowered so far that even YOU consider it too far. Should you be forced to work for someone you loathe?

I am afraid, in point of fact, that has already happened to me. I already said that no clergy should be required to perform a wedding for a gay couple. To me that is a bridge to far....but I also don't agree with the Catholic nuns who are way over the top on birth control pill coverage.

Your religious freedom cannot trump someone's Civil Rights....

[Guest]

He had or should have had every eight to say/do that. Some day the bar may be lowered so far that even YOU consider it too far. Should you be forced to work for someone you loathe?

Do you have a link that supports the statement that these women wanted the cake to be delivered?

[Guest]

Do you have a link that supports the statement that these women wanted the cake to be delivered?

I`m not the person you are addressing . However have you ever heard of someone picking up their Wedding Cake . 90% of the time the Wedding Cake is deliverred to the site of the post-ceremony reception .

[Guest]

I am afraid, in point of fact, that has already happened to me. I already said that no clergy should be required to perform a wedding for a gay couple. To me that is a bridge to far....but I also don't agree with the Catholic nuns who are way over the top on birth control pill coverage.

Your religious freedom cannot trump someone's Civil Rights....

That has nothing to do with "Civil Rights." Show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that mandates the gov to cover health care. Birth Control and Contraception is a convenience. The gov should not attempt to mandate a lifestyle. Gov tyranny is what caused the origination of United States.

[Guest]

That has nothing to do with "Civil Rights." Show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that mandates the gov to cover health care. Birth Control and Contraception is a convenience. The gov should not attempt to mandate a lifestyle. Gov tyranny is what caused the origination of United States.

They use the tired old : "Provide for the general welfare" as the excuse to give away all kinds of things. As the reason for quotas and affirmative action. Even for corporate welfare since it will "benefit" some people.

Tyranny will be the end of it too.

It's not different this time...

[Guest]

I`m not the person you are addressing . However have you ever heard of someone picking up their Wedding Cake . 90% of the time the Wedding Cake is deliverred to the site of the post-ceremony reception .

The discussions about the cake was over as soon as both names on the cake were female. The bakery owner stated they were an abomination.

Perhaps if the bakery owner had been a little over the top this might not have gone to court.

[Guest]

The discussions about the cake was over as soon as both names on the cake were female. The bakery owner stated they were an abomination.

Perhaps if the bakery owner had been a little over the top this might not have gone to court.

You mean that the owner should compromise. He/she could have handled it a bit better. They should have made the cake and then dropped it when they got it to it's destination.....whoops. Instead of being honest with how they feel. He/she could have told them to kiss his @ss, but they probably would have.

Remember, it's OK for the gays to call you a bigot, but please remember not to use derogatory names when describing their deviant, abnormal nature.

[Guest]

Remember, it's OK for the gays to call you a bigot, but please remember not to use derogatory names when describing their deviant, abnormal nature.

That goes for women and minorities too. It's always someone else responsible for their woes.

Men and whites, the devils...always in control, telling them what to do.

But look what happens when you let them "run their own life". The minorities fall into squalor and poverty and the women end up on welfare with kids from different fathers. We really need to go back to the ways of the 50s. The gays end up dead from AIDS.

[Guest]

You mean that the owner should compromise. He/she could have handled it a bit better. They should have made the cake and then dropped it when they got it to it's destination.....whoops. Instead of being honest with how they feel. He/she could have told them to kiss his @ss, but they probably would have.

Remember, it's OK for the gays to call you a bigot, but please remember not to use derogatory names when describing their deviant, abnormal nature.


Now just I minute.....the people he spoke to where a women and her mother. He asked for the names and then he went off on a religious rant. It could have been handled differently.

I wil refrain from any remarks on the rest of your post! Other than this: :censored::loco:

[Guest]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I clearly understand this amendment but I also understand how it can be misunderstood.

I am going to use the Private Country example. For many years women, such as myself, were NOT allowed to be a primary member of a Country Club and they were NOT allowed to get a tee time on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. As membership fell over the years Country Clubs looked for other streams of income. So they opened these clubs for public uses for a fee. Think weddings.

Had they remained a PRIVATE club nothing could be done to change the rules. Think Augusta! However, once they opened their doors to accommodate the PUBLIC they were required to treat everyone the same. So that is how I a single women got a primary membership in a country club.

This, of course, went through the court system.

If you are an establishment open to the public you also have to treat everyone the same. You can't say you won't bake a cake for a gay person or a black person or a Muslim.

In my opinion, if these laws go though the Courts they will be struct down.

This is NOT an assault on your religion, if you don't want to bake cakes for a protected class then don't be a PUBLIC company.

I don't think that these laws are just about baking cakes. There seems to be an issue of transgenders and restrooms. I don't know about you, but my wife and daughters do not want to share a restroom with a guy dresses as a woman. Perhaps you are a different type of woman, that does not have that modesty. But, just because there has been an issue about the selling of a cake, does not make that the whole issue. We have nuns that are being told to supply birth control, as well as other businesses required to do the same, when they do not wish to for reason of religious faith. What's next, is the gov going to require Jews and Muslims to consume pork?

Women are very adamant about a woman's choice to commit baby murder(abortion) and insist that it is a RIGHT. Gays are adamant that it is their RIGHT to same sex marriage. Minorities insist that Affirmative Action is a Right. Socialists insist that the Wealthy pay for Free College, that education is a RIGHT. Muslims insist that it is a right for a woman to have her drivers license photo be taken with them wearing a burka covering their face.

Interesting that the 1st Amendment does not cover any of those RIGHTS but it does include Religious Freedom, not from religion but the free practice of religion.

And we have someone worried about a gay wedding cake. Go figure.

[Guest]

I don't think that these laws are just about baking cakes. There seems to be an issue of transgenders and restrooms. I don't know about you, but my wife and daughters do not want to share a restroom with a guy dresses as a woman. Perhaps you are a different type of woman, that does not have that modesty. But, just because there has been an issue about the selling of a cake, does not make that the whole issue. We have nuns that are being told to supply birth control, as well as other businesses required to do the same, when they do not wish to for reason of religious faith. What's next, is the gov going to require Jews and Muslims to consume pork?

Women are very adamant about a woman's choice to commit baby murder(abortion) and insist that it is a RIGHT. Gays are adamant that it is their RIGHT to same sex marriage. Minorities insist that Affirmative Action is a Right. Socialists insist that the Wealthy pay for Free College, that education is a RIGHT. Muslims insist that it is a right for a woman to have her drivers license photo be taken with them wearing a burka covering their face.

Interesting that the 1st Amendment does not cover any of those RIGHTS but it does include Religious Freedom, not from religion but the free practice of religion.

And we have someone worried about a gay wedding cake. Go figure.


First, transgender does not mean dressing up in women's clothes. If you have to ever been in a women's bathroom, you would know each toilet has a private stall. You would not know if the person in the next stall was a male or female.

Affirmative Action is no more! No state allows a driver license photo to have the face covered. Free college is a campaign issue but has no chance of becoming law. Abortion and same sex marriage are both the law of the land!

As for the free practice of religion you want - how do you feel about Wiccan rites being practiced in a VA Hospital and the government having to hire a Wiccan priest? Or the freedom to practice the Voodoo religion with sacrificial deflowering of unwilling virgins? Or female circumcision to an unwilling girl?

[Guest]

That goes for women and minorities too. It's always someone else responsible for their woes.

Men and whites, the devils...always in control, telling them what to do.

But look what happens when you let them "run their own life". The minorities fall into squalor and poverty and the women end up on welfare with kids from different fathers. We really need to go back to the ways of the 50s. The gays end up dead from AIDS.

Do you try to be ignorant or are you really that stupid.

AIDS wasn't a disease until the 80's, fully 30 years after the 50's...

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

Now its a disease that can be managed with medication.

Its hard to believe.....

[Guest]

I don't think that these laws are just about baking cakes. There seems to be an issue of transgenders and restrooms. I don't know about you, but my wife and daughters do not want to share a restroom with a guy dresses as a woman. Perhaps you are a different type of woman, that does not have that modesty. But, just because there has been an issue about the selling of a cake, does not make that the whole issue. We have nuns that are being told to supply birth control, as well as other businesses required to do the same, when they do not wish to for reason of religious faith. What's next, is the gov going to require Jews and Muslims to consume pork?

Women are very adamant about a woman's choice to commit baby murder(abortion) and insist that it is a RIGHT. Gays are adamant that it is their RIGHT to same sex marriage. Minorities insist that Affirmative Action is a Right. Socialists insist that the Wealthy pay for Free College, that education is a RIGHT. Muslims insist that it is a right for a woman to have her drivers license photo be taken with them wearing a burka covering their face.

Interesting that the 1st Amendment does not cover any of those RIGHTS but it does include Religious Freedom, not from religion but the free practice of religion.

And we have someone worried about a gay wedding cake. Go figure.

I am the OP on the Country Club example that has NOTHING to do with bathrooms....

[Guest]

What is it with the bathroom issue....

Do you really think that women are not being attacked in bathrooms now?

Woman raped in bathroom at Manhattan bar | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/04/14/woman-attacked-raped-in-bathroom-of-gramercy-bar/)

Rape in the USA

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

A women is raped in this country every 107 secs and you are worried about transgender's....Why don't we focus on rape?

[Guest]

First, transgender does not mean dressing up in women's clothes. If you have to ever been in a women's bathroom, you would know each toilet has a private stall. You would not know if the person in the next stall was a male or female.

Affirmative Action is no more! No state allows a driver license photo to have the face covered. Free college is a campaign issue but has no chance of becoming law. Abortion and same sex marriage are both the law of the land!

As for the free practice of religion you want - how do you feel about Wiccan rites being practiced in a VA Hospital and the government having to hire a Wiccan priest? Or the freedom to practice the Voodoo religion with sacrificial deflowering of unwilling virgins? Or female circumcision to an unwilling girl?

About 50% of " transgender " males do not have " bottom surgery ". I think it would only be fair that it be required that urnals be available in ALL rest rooms . We would not wish to inconvenience that portion of the LGBT Community .

[Guest]

What is it with the bathroom issue....

Do you really think that women are not being attacked in bathrooms now?

Woman raped in bathroom at Manhattan bar | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/04/14/woman-attacked-raped-in-bathroom-of-gramercy-bar/)

Rape in the USA

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

A women is raped in this country every 107 secs and you are worried about transgender's....Why don't we focus on rape?

Yes, let's make it easier for the rapes by allowing men dressed as women to enter the restrooms. Do not make laws prohibiting this because it might offend those that are gender confused. Perhaps we can get Hillary's view on this?

[Guest]

Yes, let's make it easier for the rapes by allowing men dressed as women to enter the restrooms. Do not make laws prohibiting this because it might offend those that are gender confused. Perhaps we can get Hillary's view on this?

And just how does this rant help? Can men not already get into women's bathroom?

Did you NOT see the stats on rape? Or is it you think they are all lieing or they were asking for it?

[Guest]

And just how does this rant help? Can men not already get into women's bathroom?

Did you NOT see the stats on rape? Or is it you think they are all lieing or they were asking for it?

You're right, we should leave our home open because burglars can get in anyway. Leave your car unlocked because they will get in anyway. Why make a law prohibiting men in female restrooms, if they are just going to go into them anyway? Just remember that a male wanted to protect the female. And this male will protect his own family. Too bad others don't care enough about their family to want to protect the females in it.

[Guest]

You're right, we should leave our home open because burglars can get in anyway. Leave your car unlocked because they will get in anyway. Why make a law prohibiting men in female restrooms, if they are just going to go into them anyway? Just remember that a male wanted to protect the female. And this male will protect his own family. Too bad others don't care enough about their family to want to protect the females in it.

Wait a minute...the media keeps telling me women are EQUAL...they can do anything men can do...so why do we need to "protect" them?

:icon_wink:

[Guest]

Wait a minute...the media keeps telling me women are EQUAL...they can do anything men can do...so why do we need to "protect" them?

:icon_wink:

My daughter knows self-defense and also carries a gun, legally. She's fine. Her daughter is a national competition wrestler, so I bet she is fine too. But, my wife is small and 72, and never suggested that she was equal. And I had better hold the door open for her, or I will incur her wrath for a long time.

Just the same, I'll protect the women whether they ask for it or not. I never did like scumbag perverts. So, if you need to go, it better be in the restroom suited to your plumbing or someone else may feel as I do. And if you are in NC, no one is going to complain about a gender confused person getting a little counseling in an assertive manner. And if I am waiting at the door for my family to come out of the restroom, there won't be ANY males entering, as long as I can tell the difference. And in most cases, you can slap on all the makeup you wish, and I'll still be able to tell. I don't have any problems with a tranny entering the male restroom to use the urinal. I've seen a lot of crazy in my lifetime and that isn't going to bother me.

Just my view on the issue. What a person does in the privacy of one's home is their business. Involve me or mine and it may be a totally different matter.

[Guest]

Make way for the he/she. And you are saying that this is what you're OK following your wife or daughter into the restroom?