User Profile: zapparules

zapparules

Member Since: September 24, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 21, 2014 at 11:16pm

    fordfan
    INDEED I do realize that.
    I am not however the one pretending to stand on conviction AND discriminate against SOME certain sinners – but not others. The reason for my post was to simply point out the hypocrisy / double standard / pick-n-choose which sin to discriminate actions of this couple / this business.

  • [-7] October 21, 2014 at 10:36pm

    Monk_Man
    By YOUR logic then… Why would anyone believe going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right / needed thing to do when told such by two ‘leaders’ who never served in war?

    To be fair… Young George W. did sign-up for the National Guard – just “days away from losing his student deferment from the draft”. But major war-hawk Dick Cheney most certainly did all he could with his 5 deferments to keep his behind as far away as possible from any combat.
    So again – by YOUR own logic Monk-Man… No one should have believed our top two supposed ‘leaders’ who said we need to go to war / took us to war.
    Some of us knew they were lying.

    Right Bush, Cheney, Mr. Monk Man?
    LOL

    Responses (6) +
  • [-3] October 21, 2014 at 7:13pm

    TheGrtDcptn
    One can disagree with religious marriage yet still NOT seek to change it.
    I for one understand that the Catholic church bans homosexual marriage – and one could say I ‘disagree’ with such BUT… I in now way seek to change or stop the church from holding JUST heterosexual marriage ceremonies.

  • October 21, 2014 at 7:11pm

    Tell us AvergerK what you believe the ‘normalization’ of homosexuality is and WHY such has an effect – and WHAT such an effect is on society.

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 7:09pm

    makingout
    It has been pointed out – repeatedly that… No one is forcing the business to sell anything they are not already selling. No one is seeking / the govt can’t force say… a Jewish deli to serve non-kosher foods. The deli must – however – sell what they do currently to EVERYONE. They can’t refuse to sell to a Muslim – for example.

    Feel free to make all the threats you want about a supposed afterlife. I for one live in THIS life and KNOW that if I TRY to live a loving, caring, tolerant, compassionate, forgiving life… if – IF there is any supreme being that ultimately judges my life and what should happen to me in some supposed afterlife…
    If I live by those characteristics as best I can (understanding that I will sometimes fail – but try to do better as I move on) then… I will take any judgment possibly handed to me upon my passing.

  • October 21, 2014 at 3:40pm

    foo foo foo
    How do you do?
    Why do you do what you do?
    You poo poo poo while offering doo doo doo as a response.

    Maybe I have utilized this business.
    And maybe by doing so these folks ‘supported’ a sinner.

    You won’t address such – will you foo?
    You won’t address the hypocrisy of folks / businesses like this that pick-n-choose those sins they won’t ‘condone’ / take money from – will you now foo?
    Come on now foo… Justify such hypocrisy / double standard.

    Justify why it is OK to take money from some/most sinners but not from certain other ones.

  • [-4] October 21, 2014 at 3:33pm

    termyt: “It’s about whether we want our government to decide for us whom we will associate/do business with.”
    BINGO!
    Well… Almost Bingo.

    Should our govt decide the ‘standards’ and ‘regulations’ for doing business?
    I believe they should. To what extent can and should be debated – regularly.

    Because of the ‘impacts’ business has on a community, the nation, that is WHY I believe govt has not only the right but the responsibility to oversee and regulate business. (Again – To what extent it does can and should be regularly debated.)

    Because ALL ‘legal’ citizens should be able to hold an ‘EXPECTATION’ of availability of goods and/or services from ALL businesses operating in the pubic market square… The suggestion that discrimination (denial of goods or services) against certain (legal) citizens – based on race, religion, etc. – and now sexual orientation – becomes failed. And that discrimination of certain customers by the business based on their religious beliefs is, to me and many others, not only (now in many states) illegal but… Immoral.

    No one is forcing any one to go into business. If one doesn’t want to sell to sinners… Don’t go into (public marketplace) business.
    And if one really does ‘wish’ to enter the public marketplace and offer goods and services… Well then they will be required to operate under the laws that apply to ALL public businesses – which includes an expectations by ALL of service regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation.

  • [-12] October 21, 2014 at 3:16pm

    If these folks / this business TRULY stood by their (religious) convictions then they wouldn’t be in business at all because being in business means having to provide product and/or service to all types of sinners.

    Instead of applying their convictions to ALL.. They instead, like every other person of god/faith belief – pick-n-choose which sins / sinners they are willing to ‘accept’ / take money from.

    A gay couple is but a most obvious (and easy target) sin/sinners so… Very easy for this couple / this business to TRY and discriminate against them (and hence break the law) but… Since we all know we are all sinners…

    Again, IF these folks were truly standing by their religious convictions then…
    They would ask EVERY customer / couple if they have sinned and (not yet) repented such sin. That way they wouldn’t be taking money from (unrepentant) sinners. And my guess is… Business would be pretty slow then.

    This is but (illegal) pick-n-choose discrimination.

  • [-4] October 21, 2014 at 2:37pm

    “If you want to go, then stay!!”
    THAT is ONE of the key reasons why MOST experts say such an all-out travel ban would harm the efforts to take care of the sick and limit further spread.

    Care to offer any details from any ‘experts’ supporting why you / they believe an all-out travel ban would be the ‘best’ / most effective action for addressing this very complex matter?

  • [4] October 21, 2014 at 2:33pm

    Neither should these folks / this business – IF they truly stand by their convictions.

    But then again… They never really seemed to have any issue with taking money from other sinners so…

    Responses (5) +
  • [7] October 21, 2014 at 2:31pm

    Klein concluded, “You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

    I agree Terminus-Est. IF they say they don’t want to compromise their convictions then they would refuse this money.

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 2:23pm

    foo
    Interesting that you offered one of the links you did – where the particular story also offered a link to another rather interesting story – one with the headlines:
    Obama deports more illegal immigrants in 5 years than Bush did in 8
    http://wexmain.newsok.com/feds-obama-deports-more-illegal-immigrants-in-5-years-than-bush-did-in-8/article/2554329
    Thanks for sharing

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 2:18pm

    Did you say something foo?

    Didn’t think so.

  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 2:17pm

    KeystoneState
    You didn’t address a single point I presented.
    GREAT! You support doing whatever it takes. That’s wonderful.
    Whatever it takes is but a generic generalization.
    What is actually feasible is based in reason and fact.
    And what must actually be done – and HOW to do it – the ‘logistics’ — are CRITICAL components that MUST be identified if one wants to (possibly) achieve what might actually be feasible to do.

  • [-3] October 21, 2014 at 1:42pm

    KeystoneState
    So are you suggesting we (try to ) place Americans in these other countries – FORCE them into positions at THEIR national airports (and other ports of exit) – where they can then (supposedly) enforce a plan like pre-departure screenings???
    How might that work?
    Do we ‘nicely’ ask these other countries for permission to send… perhaps hundreds? of Americans into their countries and ‘nicely’ ask them to install these Americans in these positions of pre-departure authority?
    AND REMEMBER…. There are no direct flights coming from the Ebola-infected African countries and so… We will be needing to place these pre-departure screeners in MANY other countries. How long of a wait until we MAYBE get permissions from ALL those countries – so as to then ‘force’ our representatives and our pre-departure screening procedures into THEIR airports / airlines / etc?
    And what happens when OUR screeners find possibly infected folks?

    Sounds like you want to force many other nations to take our citizens and our procedures and incorporate them into THEIR national airports and other points of departure.
    Care to offer any details on just how that is supposed to be achieved?

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] October 20, 2014 at 2:04pm

    watchingitall
    See my post about slavery
    Our constitution and laws are not based on a certain god belief or book associated with such and so… Arguments that attempt to place ‘religious freedoms or rights’ ahead of U.S. law-specific freedoms and rights simply ‘do not cut it’.
    Unless some of you are willing to argue that say, Sharia law should have an ‘equal standing’ with your god’s laws AND our nations laws, well…

  • [2] October 20, 2014 at 1:58pm

    RabidPatriot
    Excellent summation of the issue

  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 1:45pm

    So if one holds that it is their religious belief / right to own slaves… Does that mean that form of religious expression is to be allowed?

    So why do some on the right attempt to argue that when a certain form of discrimination is outlawed (just as slavery was) – do they think their right to religious freedom still gives them the right to break those laws and discriminate (in the public marketplace)?

    The bible justifies slavery. So why no arguments that slavery is but a form of religious freedom / expression.
    WHY?
    Because our country is founded and operates under the laws as defined by its people and their leaders – NOT by the ‘laws’ as identified in the bible or by some god belief.

  • [-2] October 20, 2014 at 1:40pm

    My feeling that this section was going to become a mostly MONK-free section seems to be panning out.

  • [-2] October 20, 2014 at 1:38pm

    Tachy320
    Do you know anything about that area where Obama was talking?
    Apparently not.

123 To page: Go