Interesting letter to the editor in the Denver Post this morning. Unlike Dog, he didn't mince words. He said it is time to cast off religion and its outdated ideas like intolerance, polygamy, and other outdated concepts. He wants religion to adapt itself to government instead.
I think you will see more and more of this in the future. I have been encountering more and more people who believe the religious are ignorant believers in fairy tales and that they need to grow up. Anyone agree that they expect religious freedoms will continue to erode as opposed to Dog who thinks they have never been greater?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Absolutely they will continue to be eroded. Believers will continue to be marginalized and portrayed as nutjobs in accordance with Alinsky's writings on the power of ridicule. This goes hand-in-hand with their settled "$cience" (which, by the way, has no relation with true, unbiased scientific research, if there's really any of that going on anymore).
Just remember: the collectivists are infinitely more tolerant than either believers or non-believers of conservative bent.
(And just for the record before the personal attacks begin I consider myself a non-believer who believes everyone has the right to believe what they want)
Last edit: 03 Apr 2015 07:44 by cydl. Reason: clarification, typo
FredHayek wrote: Interesting letter to the editor in the Denver Post this morning. Unlike Dog, he didn't mince words. He said it is time to cast off religion and its outdated ideas like intolerance, polygamy, and other outdated concepts. He wants religion to adapt itself to government instead.
I think you will see more and more of this in the future. I have been encountering more and more people who believe the religious are ignorant believers in fairy tales and that they need to grow up. Anyone agree that they expect religious freedoms will continue to erode as opposed to Dog who thinks they have never been greater?
I wonder if this same person would say the same thing and name Islam as one of those fairy tales? Is he "Charlie"? I doubt it, but I'll bet he bashes Christians on a daily basis.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
So you believe that a restaurant should be able to deny service to blacks solely based on the color of their skin?
Nice try to put words in my mouth, Dog.
Read the post again. I think it is quite clear, and does not require either interpretation or extrapolation.
Let's see what you posted:
jf1acai wrote:
Seems to me that private businesses should have the right to serve/turn away anyone they want anyway notwithstanding religious beliefs.
Agree!!
You agreed that businesses should be able to turn away anyone they want, is that correct? And I asked whether that included the right of businesses to turn away individuals from their business solely based on their skin color. Either you believe that businesses should have that right or you do not. Which is it?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: As opposed to the "tolerance" of conservative "christians"?
What is your point dog? You approve of progressive bigotry because conservative christians do it to.
That is an awfully broad brush that you were painting with claiming that someone offering free pizza proves "The intolerance of progressives. Shades of the Salem witch trials and the Spanish inquisition." I was merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your statement.
If you are going to rant about "The intolerance of progressives. Shades of the Salem witch trials and the Spanish inquisition." based on a tweet and someone passing out free pizza, then perhaps you should look at the actions of individuals associated with "christian conservatives".
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Here are some of the sections from an open letter signed off by most of the leaders of the tech industry that covers my point of view:
"We believe it is critically important to speak out about proposed bills and existing laws that would put the rights of minorities at risk. The transparent and open economy of the future depends on it, and the values of this great nation are at stake.
Religious freedom, inclusion, and diversity can co-exist and everyone including LGBT people and people of faith should be protected under their states’ civil rights laws. No person should have to fear losing their job or be denied service or housing because of who they are or whom they love.
However, right now those values are being called into question in states across the country. In more than twenty states, legislatures are considering legislation that could empower individuals or businesses to discriminate against LGBT people by denying them service if it they felt it violated their religious beliefs.
To ensure no one faces discrimination and ensure everyone preserves their right to live out their faith, we call on all legislatures to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes to their civil rights laws and to explicitly forbid discrimination or denial of services to anyone."
I wonder if this would work? It seems to work for all sorts of online businesses, including here.
Answer for Christian businesses: Use a 'Terms of Service Agreement'
Today’s generation is very well-acquainted with what is known as a “Terms of Service Agreement.” In fact, people across all generations that use social media and apps, or purchase products online, know they must always “agree” to the terms of service before any services will be even be considered. They simply check the “Agree to Terms” box and proceed to do business with the company.
.
.
.
