Mormon Tabernacle Singer Quits Choir Over Trump Inauguration

[Fathertime]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

[Bighead]

Man your mind is diluted

[DirtyDan]

Remember when push comes to shove......

One side has tie dyes the other uses force

Force wins every time

Dan

[Robert]

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

Why is it that its ok to not serve in the choir or the whole choir not sing at the inauguration and its not ok for a bakery not to bake a cake both on conviction or protection by law?

The other question is since its a personal conviction of both why is one, in your mind, making a judgement call and saying I hate you, you are a bad person, the bakery, Or even on this board for that matter.

Yet the other saying I just dont feel like doing it, the choir?

Laws are meant to be unbiased, both should be treated equally.

These both are personal beliefs,  and actually your personal bias is not seeing the laws should be equal for all.

In truth its the bakery that is only following their religious conviction not anything else. This does not require them to make a value judgement or discriminate against a person since the decision has been made by God for them. This a mistake that you also seem to not see.

As a Christians its laid out clearly what is wrong and right in the Bible. Christians are told what not to participate in fairly clearly and its the government that is trying to get Christians to violate or defy Gods order. It is not by hate or discrimination that leads to the judgement by one person of another but following the Bible and a religious belief. 


 Its actually the choir girl and director that are actually making a value judgement based on their personal belief that Trump is evil, that is a personal judgement a bias or even discrimination.   

Why was it ok for businesses to punish and discriminate and take their business out of NC? Yet not be fined.

Let me also say that I have never seen this kind of disrespect for the office of presidency. Kind of like when you were a kid your parents would say respect your elders.

[Bighead]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

It appears you haven't been paying attention to all the name calling and marching over anything a conservative did or said

[Fathertime]

Its such a shame, really, how this has all progressed to such a level.  Reading the comments on this thread show such a huge amount of contempt for a person, or people who have differing thoughts or ideals than others present or speaking out here.  There was a time during the founding of this great country were argument and debate was celebrated, even encouraged.  Those with the courage and backbone to do it stood up for what they believed in.  There were arguments, I'm sure over what was the right course but in the end, we honor those founding fathers who stood up and took a stand - not only emotionally but physically - for those principles they believed in.
Not so much today, it appears.
Your principles, your beliefs, your religion differs from mine, and so you must be wrong.   It has, somehow, become the sacred duty of opposers to convert the dissenters to their "mainstream" beliefs.  If logic fails to turn the tide then force becomes the select tool.  Attack, insult, repeat a party line over and over untill it becomes such a caphony of noise and sound that no other can be heard.  Follow others in the herd, insulting and condemming over and over.  Repeating past deeds (either real or imagined, mutually committed or alone by one party).
In the background, below the noise one thread continues.
You have no right to stand up for your beliefs, to vocalize them, to discuss them because.......
  (insert real or imagined transgression from the past here).
One can not have their "cake" and eat it also.  Because one person was prevented from selling a dumb cake does not prevent a second, unrelated, person for standing up for what they believe in. If you want to reconcile the two issues, you have two choices from what I can see:
1)  Continue to yammer on about how bad that person is, and bask in the glory of like minded people repeating back what you just said, but in slightly different words, learning and gaining nothing.
2)  Listen, no really listen, to an oppposing view.  I'm not saying that you have to change your frame of reference or point of view, but am suggesting that rather than dismissing out of hand the dialog you just take a second to listen ansd possibly learn something.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Yes, perhaps listening is good thing.

If you had you would have discovered that the issue isn't about baking a cake, selling a cake or not selling a cake. The issue was and is about Religious persecution by the government for doing nothing more than not participating in something that is in opposition to one's religious beliefs.

Yet while the government apparently now can persecute you for your religious beliefs, Constitutionally protected beliefs mind you, and force you to participate in activities that you are opposed to and find abhorrent, and the government's basis for this is to "protect" people from specific discrimination and this is where the double standard enters.

Either discrimination is wrong or it is allowed.

The Government itself cannot discriminate in its practices (within reason. The blind cannot become fighter pilots or snipers and such)

But as far as I am concerned, we, as individuals, should be able to discriminate at our discretion with no government persecution or prosecution.

If a baker doesn't want to decorate a cake for a gay couple's wedding and the couple is upset, have their community boycott the bakery. Don't associate with them.

You discriminate at your social peril.

But the standard now is that the Government has stepped in to protect specific individuals from discrimination and not protect others.

If the Government can force a baker to decorate a cake for a gay wedding against their will then the Government better force people to do what I want too. No matter how offensive it may seem to them.

 

"Yes, perhaps listening is good thing."

"Talk less.  Smile more"
- A. Burr to A. Hamilton
-From the play, Hamilton.


"But as far as I am concerned, we, as individuals, should be able to discriminate at our discretion with no government persecution or prosecution."

Really?
We as a people should be able to descriminate at our discretion?  I had to read that twice to make sure I read it correctly.
Descriminate?  As in with no boundrys?
I dont like YOUR hair color, so I can descriminate?
I dont like YOUR eye color, so I can descriminate?
How about your last name?
Where you live?
Oh, lets go full out here,
I dont like your Japanese motorcycle?
How about your skin color, or your religion?

Where does it end?  When I hurt your feelings?  The feelings of your family?  The feelings of the motorcycle community?  Your church/temple/mosque?

Does it end at MY descretion?  What if I choose NOT to end it.

So many have made statements to the effect of "suck it up buttercup".  What if I said exactly the same thing to you, or your family, or the motorcycle community?

As far as this cake "double standard" goes, thats a crock also.  On one hand, we have a person who QUIT her position in a voluntary manner to stand up for what she believes in, to demonstate her conviction to a principle.  On the other hand we have a person who descriminated againt other people.  Lets say that again,  descriminated against another party. Others on this thread have made the statement that if you dont follow the rules, you need to pay the piper, and to this I agree.  Cake man performed an immoral act, and he paid the price.
IMHO, saying he deserved otherwise is the true double standard.

"Alll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
E. Burke

[Fathertime]

Man your mind is diluted

Outstanding comeback!
Reply with an insult!
Awsome!
To paraphrase my first post:  when confronted by opposing views, attack and insult.

[Fathertime]

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

Why is it that its ok to not serve in the choir or the whole choir not sing at the inauguration and its not ok for a bakery not to bake a cake both on conviction or protection by law?

The other question is since its a personal conviction of both why is one, in your mind, making a judgement call and saying I hate you, you are a bad person, the bakery, Or even on this board for that matter.

Yet the other saying I just dont feel like doing it, the choir?

Laws are meant to be unbiased, both should be treated equally.

These both are personal beliefs,  and actually your personal bias is not seeing the laws should be equal for all.

In truth its the bakery that is only following their religious conviction not anything else. This does not require them to make a value judgement or discriminate against a person since the decision has been made by God for them. This a mistake that you also seem to not see.

As a Christians its laid out clearly what is wrong and right in the Bible. Christians are told what not to participate in fairly clearly and its the government that is trying to get Christians to violate or defy Gods order. It is not by hate or discrimination that leads to the judgement by one person of another but following the Bible and a religious belief. 


 Its actually the choir girl and director that are actually making a value judgement based on their personal belief that Trump is evil, that is a personal judgement a bias or even discrimination.   

Why was it ok for businesses to punish and discriminate and take their business out of NC? Yet not be fined.

Let me also say that I have never seen this kind of disrespect for the office of presidency. Kind of like when you were a kid your parents would say respect your elders.

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

[Robert]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

Wow ! Christian love shining thru ?

[Moonshot_1]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

I'm just looking for a rational explanation of why it is acceptable to have the Government persecute devout Christian business people because they do not wish to participate in activities that they believe violate their devoutly held beliefs.

I can see the problem if a gay couple came into a bakery seeking a gay themed wedding cake and the proprietors beat them until they accepted Christ. Or even Mohammed. You know, forcing their religion upon them.

But in this case they simply don't wish to participate in this particular activity. And for this they are persecuted. For doing nothing.

I'm just wanting the law to apply across the board. Frankly, I want the law to allow me great latitude when it comes to the topic of discrimination. And I want the law to be strict about discrimination within the government and public sector.

But as to the private sector and individual rights as it relates to discrimination, there should be no laws restricting it. Don't suggest that this is supporting criminal acts.
You discriminate at your peril.  

If someone doesn't want to serve Blacks and Latinos, fine. Me and my friends won't be giving them any business at all and I'll discriminate against them right back and make sure all my friends know.

If I'm not into gay weddings, the government should not have the power to make me like it at the threat of my livelyhood. And this is the hinge point of the debate.

It isn't that it is only "right" when conservatism says it is or liberalism says it is.

The issue is that we, as a society have established through our government that it is permissible to persecute someone and threaten their livelihood because they choose not to participate in an activity with someone.
You support this view.

I don't

Unless we support it across the board. But that would be ridiculous.





  

[The emperor has no clothes]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

I'm just looking for a rational explanation of why it is acceptable to have the Government persecute devout Christian business people because they do not wish to participate in activities that they believe violate their devoutly held beliefs.

I can see the problem if a gay couple came into a bakery seeking a gay themed wedding cake and the proprietors beat them until they accepted Christ. Or even Mohammed. You know, forcing their religion upon them.

But in this case they simply don't wish to participate in this particular activity. And for this they are persecuted. For doing nothing.

I'm just wanting the law to apply across the board. Frankly, I want the law to allow me great latitude when it comes to the topic of discrimination. And I want the law to be strict about discrimination within the government and public sector.

But as to the private sector and individual rights as it relates to discrimination, there should be no laws restricting it. Don't suggest that this is supporting criminal acts.
You discriminate at your peril.  

If someone doesn't want to serve Blacks and Latinos, fine. Me and my friends won't be giving them any business at all and I'll discriminate against them right back and make sure all my friends know.

If I'm not into gay weddings, the government should not have the power to make me like it at the threat of my livelyhood. And this is the hinge point of the debate.

It isn't that it is only "right" when conservatism says it is or liberalism says it is.

The issue is that we, as a society have established through our government that it is permissible to persecute someone and threaten their livelihood because they choose not to participate in an activity with someone.
You support this view.

I don't

Unless we support it across the board. But that would be ridiculous.





  

We once discriminated as you say you would like us to be. We have evolved and progressed. But maybe you don't see it that way. I personally hope we never go back. Do you really want it to be ok for businesses to be able to legally not allow people of different races, religions, and such service ?

[Serk]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[Bighead]

Man your mind is diluted

Outstanding comeback!
Reply with an insult!
Awsome!
To paraphrase my first post:  when confronted by opposing views, attack and insult.

Where did I attack? And not even close to an insult that is just the way I see your point of view on this matter it is 180* from most people here.

[Fathertime]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

Wow ! Christian love shining thru ?

Must be.
My liberal feelings are hurt!
OTOH, all my friends are gonna be there, and I'm looking forward to a hell of a party!

[Fathertime]

Man your mind is diluted

Outstanding comeback!
Reply with an insult!
Awsome!
To paraphrase my first post:  when confronted by opposing views, attack and insult.

Where did I attack? And not even close to an insult that is just the way I see your point of view on this matter it is 180* from most people here.

"My mind is diluted"
(Points)
Umm, right there!?

IMHO Opinions 180* areally not always bad.  Sometimes they make you think.  I've never been a follower anyway.  That's why I ride a Dragon!

[Robert]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

Wow ! Christian love shining thru ?

I guess the example of no respect unless earned was lost on you.

I am sure like me you were instilled with certain values and who to respect regardless of if they earned it or not. Like the position of presidency, you can respect the position even if you dont respect the person. A judge has not earned your respect but you respect him anyway. That is what the chorus should have done and what the left should do.

It was only an example and not my real feelings but let me say one more thing, no animals were hurt in the listing of this post either.

[Fathertime]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

I'm just looking for a rational explanation of why it is acceptable to have the Government persecute devout Christian business people because they do not wish to participate in activities that they believe violate their devoutly held beliefs.

I can see the problem if a gay couple came into a bakery seeking a gay themed wedding cake and the proprietors beat them until they accepted Christ. Or even Mohammed. You know, forcing their religion upon them.

But in this case they simply don't wish to participate in this particular activity. And for this they are persecuted. For doing nothing.

I'm just wanting the law to apply across the board. Frankly, I want the law to allow me great latitude when it comes to the topic of discrimination. And I want the law to be strict about discrimination within the government and public sector.

But as to the private sector and individual rights as it relates to discrimination, there should be no laws restricting it. Don't suggest that this is supporting criminal acts.
You discriminate at your peril.  

If someone doesn't want to serve Blacks and Latinos, fine. Me and my friends won't be giving them any business at all and I'll discriminate against them right back and make sure all my friends know.

If I'm not into gay weddings, the government should not have the power to make me like it at the threat of my livelyhood. And this is the hinge point of the debate.

It isn't that it is only "right" when conservatism says it is or liberalism says it is.

The issue is that we, as a society have established through our government that it is permissible to persecute someone and threaten their livelihood because they choose not to participate in an activity with someone.
You support this view.

I don't

Unless we support it across the board. But that would be ridiculous.





  

We once discriminated as you say you would like us to be. We have evolved and progressed. But maybe you don't see it that way. I personally hope we never go back. Do you really want it to be ok for businesses to be able to legally not allow people of different races, religions, and such service ?

No, meathead, in a sensitive subject it's easy to misunderstand.
I do NOT want to go back to legal discrimination, in fact I want to move forward, and continue to expand equal rights.

[Romeo]

Isn't it interesting how the folks on the left, who had absolutely no room for any opinions, on anything, that didn't fit with their values for the last eight years, are now clamoring for understanding and tolerance of differing views? Now that they've realized that a very large, mostly silent portion of the citizenry are diametrically opposed to their elitist beliefs, and have finally made their voices heard, the narrative on the left has become all about how intolerant and oppressive the new power base is. What a total crock. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear know who the intolerant deplorables are.

And, your lack of tolerance is different exactly how?

as is the norm, you totally miss the point. For the past eight years, conservatives have been tolerant lefts "ideas" of how they thought we all should live. We listened, rejected the ideas for ourselves, but didn't deny them to those who believed in them. What we rejcted them for ourselves, knowing that soon, the worm would turn. Now that it has, the outcry from the supposed inclusive, toerant left is deafening. To be expected I suppose, since they know better.

[Fathertime]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

Wow ! Christian love shining thru ?

I guess the example of no respect unless earned was lost on you.

I am sure like me you were instilled with certain values and who to respect regardless of if they earned it or not. Like the position of presidency, you can respect the position even if you dont respect the person. A judge has not earned your respect but you respect him anyway. That is what the chorus should have done and what the left should do.

It was only an example and not my real feelings but let me say one more thing, no animals were hurt in the listing of this post either.

Still gonna be a hell of a party.
Meatheads' invited.
You Robert are not, as I do NOT respect a person who makes the kind of assumptions you did.  You have NO IDEA how I honor people who provided service, nor how and why I honor the courts or LEOs'.
And, BTW, I am not a member of PETA.

[The emperor has no clothes]

You only have the Right if it is ok in the Libs view in most cases.

And, it appears from your comments along with others, one is only right if the conservativesame say so.
I've seen it go both ways.

I'm just looking for a rational explanation of why it is acceptable to have the Government persecute devout Christian business people because they do not wish to participate in activities that they believe violate their devoutly held beliefs.

I can see the problem if a gay couple came into a bakery seeking a gay themed wedding cake and the proprietors beat them until they accepted Christ. Or even Mohammed. You know, forcing their religion upon them.

But in this case they simply don't wish to participate in this particular activity. And for this they are persecuted. For doing nothing.

I'm just wanting the law to apply across the board. Frankly, I want the law to allow me great latitude when it comes to the topic of discrimination. And I want the law to be strict about discrimination within the government and public sector.

But as to the private sector and individual rights as it relates to discrimination, there should be no laws restricting it. Don't suggest that this is supporting criminal acts.
You discriminate at your peril.  

If someone doesn't want to serve Blacks and Latinos, fine. Me and my friends won't be giving them any business at all and I'll discriminate against them right back and make sure all my friends know.

If I'm not into gay weddings, the government should not have the power to make me like it at the threat of my livelyhood. And this is the hinge point of the debate.

It isn't that it is only "right" when conservatism says it is or liberalism says it is.

The issue is that we, as a society have established through our government that it is permissible to persecute someone and threaten their livelihood because they choose not to participate in an activity with someone.
You support this view.

I don't

Unless we support it across the board. But that would be ridiculous.





  

We once discriminated as you say you would like us to be. We have evolved and progressed. But maybe you don't see it that way. I personally hope we never go back. Do you really want it to be ok for businesses to be able to legally not allow people of different races, religions, and such service ?

No, meathead, in a sensitive subject it's easy to misunderstand.
I do NOT want to go back to legal discrimination, in fact I want to move forward, and continue to expand equal rights.

I'm glad to hear that  

[Fathertime]

Isn't it interesting how the folks on the left, who had absolutely no room for any opinions, on anything, that didn't fit with their values for the last eight years, are now clamoring for understanding and tolerance of differing views? Now that they've realized that a very large, mostly silent portion of the citizenry are diametrically opposed to their elitist beliefs, and have finally made their voices heard, the narrative on the left has become all about how intolerant and oppressive the new power base is. What a total crock. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear know who the intolerant deplorables are.

And, your lack of tolerance is different exactly how?

as is the norm, you totally miss the point. For the past eight years, conservatives have been tolerant lefts "ideas" of how they thought we all should live. We listened, rejected the ideas for ourselves, but didn't deny them to those who believed in them. What we rejcted them for ourselves, knowing that soon, the worm would turn. Now that it has, the outcry from the supposed inclusive, toerant left is deafening. To be expected I suppose, since they know better.

"As is the norm"?
Generalizations are the easy way out.
And as far as conservatives being "tolerant", no, I don't think that's the case.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Indeed.  Why was it ok for business to punish and discriminate and not be punished?
And as far as respect goes, respect is earned, through hard work and not demanded.  Respect as a result of force is also known as fear.

If respect is earned then you can go to hell,  because you have not earned my respect. See how easy that was I guess in your book we can forget to honor the position or the service some did for their country or older people since I dont know them and they have not earned your respect.

But you still did not address the rule of law being consistent and the girl and the choir director made a judgement call and denied Trump the opportunity of their performance. Either good or bad, just like the bakery did. In fact they did it disrespectfully to the position of president regardless of whose in office.

Wow ! Christian love shining thru ?

I guess the example of no respect unless earned was lost on you.

I am sure like me you were instilled with certain values and who to respect regardless of if they earned it or not. Like the position of presidency, you can respect the position even if you dont respect the person. A judge has not earned your respect but you respect him anyway. That is what the chorus should have done and what the left should do.

It was only an example and not my real feelings but let me say one more thing, no animals were hurt in the listing of this post either.

I guess it was lost on me. Because it sure sounded like you told Fathertime he could go to hell.

[Fathertime]

Meathead,
According to Robert I'm gonna to hell.  I'm planning a blow out when I arrive and your invited to the party.
Which do you prefer, fermented or distilled adult beverages?

[Rams]

Personally, I couldn't care less about the singer quitting for whatever reason.  Her choice.
I also think that baker should be able to serve who they wish to serve for whatever reason.   If they don't see someone's money as good enough, then so be it.    Their loss of business.

In the PC world we've created, choice has been thrown out the window.   I own and operate a transport business, should I decide that I won't transport HDs, then that is my option and my loss of potential business.   Word would spread that Rams Transport won't haul broke down HDs and my business would suffer.   A risk that goes along with a personal decision.   It is, what it is.    There are a lot of other transport businesses and bakeries that can do the job.  

Having said that, I'll still haul an HD, I kind of get a kick out of it.  

[Serk]

And, BTW, I am not a member of PETA.

I am.

[Bighead]

Man your mind is diluted

Outstanding comeback!
Reply with an insult!
Awsome!
To paraphrase my first post:  when confronted by opposing views, attack and insult.

Where did I attack? And not even close to an insult that is just the way I see your point of view on this matter it is 180* from most people here.

"My mind is diluted"
(Points)
Umm, right there!?

IMHO Opinions 180* areally not always bad.  Sometimes they make you think.  I've never been a follower anyway.  That's why I ride a Dragon!

You call that an attack? it is more like an opinion.
And as far as opinions being 180* there's another and never said they were bad, I realize I could never change yours and you sure as hell will never change mine. So let's agree to disagree.
On everything except our choice of MC's.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Meathead,
According to Robert I'm gonna to hell.  I'm planning a blow out when I arrive and your invited to the party.
Which do you prefer, fermented or distilled adult beverages?

fermented, thank you 

[Robert]

Well Fathertime your right that I dont know you, so I have no idea if you are going to hell. But your wrong that respect is only earned. If you say you give respect to the people you dont know then you are going against your statement. I guess you didn't follow that.

I made no assumptions, I just made examples of your thinking, to prove a point that sometimes you give respect because of position and manners. That is what this girl and society has lost along with fair rule of law for both liberal and conservatives.

You see we already have freedom of religion its in the first amendment. So technically the bakers had their rights taken away from them because they did not make a cake. But the chorus cannot use that. Now if you want to move forward then address that. Why was the girl not fined or penalized for not performing? Why was the chorus not fined for not accepting and in saying that if anyone wants to opt out has said in effect we believe there is something wrong with the Trump presidency. If I were Trump I would seriously think about suing the girl for slander also.

Since you are for equal rights then you will either say that the girl should be fined or the bakers should receive an award for damage done since their constitutional rights were violated. Rights that have already been awarded and acknowledged yet trampled on for government mandated rights.  Something that neither the chorus or girl can say.

What we have here is exactly what you say you dont want, legal discrimination. Done, better yet, for liberal values. Tearing down legal rights given us by the first amendment and siding with liberals. Now doesn't that make you mad

[Willow]

Meathead,
According to Robert I'm gonna to hell.  I'm planning a blow out when I arrive and your invited to the party.
Which do you prefer, fermented or distilled adult beverages?

fermented, thank you  

Hmmm.  It looked like Robert stated the going to Hell and not caring as an example, not proper and hypothetical I hope.

Fathertime (not my father nor the father of my time) countered by planning a party a party and excluding Robert but inviting Meathead.  Isn't that exactly what he condemned the baker for?  I was truly disappointed when Meathead refused to recognize this and participated in the discrimination.  

Discrimination by the government is wrong.  I am pleased that we no longer do that.  A business choosing who it will or will not serve is a right.  It may or may not be correct behavior but it is not right for a court to make the decision to award a penalty large enough to run the organization out of business.

If the right to serve whom we want or refuse service to whom we choose is taken away is that far from removing our right to work for whom we choose or shop where we choose to shop?

It appears to me that the accusation of thinking someone is right only when that person agrees with us applies to both sides of almost any conflict.  I'm not sure I would think much of someone who would say he believes the opposition is right but chooses to continue to support his own wrong position.  Would that be discrimination?  Perhaps I shouldn't say that aloud.      

[The emperor has no clothes]

Meathead,
According to Robert I'm gonna to hell.  I'm planning a blow out when I arrive and your invited to the party.
Which do you prefer, fermented or distilled adult beverages?

fermented, thank you  

Hmmm.  It looked like Robert stated the going to Hell and not caring as an example, not proper and hypothetical I hope.

Fathertime (not my father nor the father of my time) countered by planning a party a party and excluding Robert but inviting Meathead.  Isn't that exactly what he condemned the baker for?  I was truly disappointed when Meathead refused to recognize this and participated in the discrimination.  

Discrimination by the government is wrong.  I am pleased that we no loner do that.  A business choosing who it will or will not serve is a right.  It may or may not be correct behavior but it is not right for a court to make the decision to award a penalty large enough to run the organization out of business.

If the right to serve whom we want or refuse service to whom we choose is taken away is that far from removing our right to work for whom we choose or shop where we choose to shop?

It appears to me that the accusation of thinking someone is right only when that person agrees with us applies to both sides of almost any conflict.  I'm not sure I would think much of someone who would say he believes the opposition is right but chooses to continue to support his own wrong position.  Would that be discrimination?  Perhaps I shouldn't say that aloud.      

I never took you for a loner ?   (for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.   

[Willow]

I never took you for a loner ?   (for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.   

Actually my behavioral policy calls for me to willingly lone or to give if something is in my hands that someone else needs.  Of course that excludes those that are already in or definitely on their way to Hell.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

I never took you for a loner ?   (for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.  

Actually my behavioral policy calls for me to willingly lone or to give if something is in my hands that someone else needs.  Of course that excludes those that are already in or definitely on their way to Hell.  

So then......you are a discriminating loaner ?  

[Robert]

(for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.   

Actually me too.  

[Bighead]

And if either of you think Hell will be a party

[The emperor has no clothes]

And if either of you think Hell will be a party

WHAT ? It's not going to be fun ? 

[Willow]

I never took you for a loner ?   (for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.  

Actually my behavioral policy calls for me to willingly lone or to give if something is in my hands that someone else needs.  Of course that excludes those that are already in or definitely on their way to Hell.  

So then......you are a discriminating loaner ?  

Yeah, I fixed it.

You know there was a time that being referred to as a discriminating thinker was considered a compliment.  

I'm not the world's best typer or spellist.  

[Fathertime]

Well Fathertime your right that I dont know you, so I have no idea if you are going to hell. But your wrong that respect is only earned. If you say you give respect to the people you dont know then you are going against your statement. I guess you didn't follow that.

I made no assumptions, I just made examples of your thinking, to prove a point that sometimes you give respect because of position and manners. That is what this girl and society has lost along with fair rule of law for both liberal and conservatives.

You see we already have freedom of religion its in the first amendment. So technically the bakers had their rights taken away from them because they did not make a cake. But the chorus cannot use that. Now if you want to move forward then address that. Why was the girl not fined or penalized for not performing? Why was the chorus not fined for not accepting and in saying that if anyone wants to opt out has said in effect we believe there is something wrong with the Trump presidency. If I were Trump I would seriously think about suing the girl for slander also.

Since you are for equal rights then you will either say that the girl should be fined or the bakers should receive an award for damage done since their constitutional rights were violated. Rights that have already been awarded and acknowledged yet trampled on for government mandated rights.  Something that neither the chorus or girl can say.

What we have here is exactly what you say you dont want, legal discrimination. Done, better yet, for liberal values. Tearing down legal rights given us by the first amendment and siding with liberals. Now doesn't that make you mad

I stand by the statement that respect is earned.  Period.
She resigned a volunteer position.  Period.  You can't fine someone for not performing in a performance that has not happened yet.
You cite freedom of religion, but neglect freedom of speach.
Your logic is as convoluted as a mobius strip.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I never took you for a loner ?   (for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.  

Actually my behavioral policy calls for me to willingly lone or to give if something is in my hands that someone else needs.  Of course that excludes those that are already in or definitely on their way to Hell.  

So then......you are a discriminating loaner ?  

Yeah, I fixed it.

You know there was a time that being referred to as a discriminating thinker was considered a compliment.  

I'm not the world's best typer or spellist.  

I think it is still considered a compliment.  not one I've been graced with too often though 
You are a pretty good spellist, but an even better sport 

[Fathertime]

And if either of you think Hell will be a party

WHAT ? It's not going to be fun ? 

Meathead, brother, I guaran-daym-tee you, it's gonna be one sweet time.
(My wife, a Jew, just reminded me that they don't have hell.  It's a lookin better and better! )