Jump to content
If CMR had urged Bette in Spokane to try the Washington health insurance exchange and if, having done so, Bette was still faced with much higher costs, then there's a story there. As it is, CMR simply used Bette for political purposes, while ignoring the real life needs of her constituent.
So, what does your religious person do if they run a convenience store and a mid 20'sh male with eye shadow, earrings and a somewhat effeminate bearing comes in by himself to buy condoms? (Please don't dodge the question by asserting a religious store owner wouldn't sell condoms.) Does your religious person profile the young man and refuse to sell him condoms? On what basis?
Can a gas station attendant in M-F refuse to pump gas if two men kiss in their car while waiting for him?
Do you draw any line or is it just a profiling free-for-all and damned the consequences to others?
Very much true - I just don't torture the ordinary meaning of words as much as you do to try to justify foolishness.
There you go playing games with words.
A private "business" would be one that required an application for membership, a review of that membership by a membership committee and approval or disapproval of the application - like a country club, not like Costco. A public business opens its doors to the public - like a florist shop in the Tri-Cities.
Clearly, you want to defend the rights of the religious who run public (as I've defined it) businesses to discriminate against gays - that's where you and I part company, and where your position continues to support the oppression of a minority. Call it what you will, I call it bigotry.
Finally, I'm not dense - spare yourself typing the personal attacks - I'm just unwilling to accept your sophistry in the defense of the indefensible.
^ Which is a long way around the barn to say that the "pesky requirement" that there be illegal activity was fully satisfied and, as usual, your purple prose about jailing people because "we just hate them" was hot air.
The only request I've made of the sincerely religious in this thread is that they not discriminate against gays if they offer goods and services through public businesses. Anything beyond that - including particularly "moral approval" -is your attempt to put words in my mouth which you can then refute.
As for the rest of your reply, I have no idea what "No one has a right not to be offended by anyone else's life choices, unless they are a direct interference with one's own" means. The sentence doesn't make sense and even if it did there are words in there that you can play with - e.g., what is a "direct interference" - to make it in any way a statement that can be responded to.
So far as I can see, you insist on (1) choosing to believe that sexual orientation in gays is not hard wired, (2) arguing that even if it is, a gay can (perhaps in your view should) not act on that hard wired sexual orientation, and (3) defending the right of the sincerely religious to discriminate against gays in the provision of goods and services through otherwise public businesses. That strikes me as the societal approach we've had toward the gay community for the last 60 years or so. To me, the current wave of change is long over due and most welcome.
So many words which you try to reinforce with ad hominem attacks. You may claim to be on the same page as I am, however you express yourself much like the traditional gay basher. Frankly, I don't care if you're an atheist, or a libertarian, or a Zoroastrian - you seem to think these various belief systems you have excuse your (shifting) positions.
To your claims - there's a huge difference between not "conclusively" proven and "unproven." Not "conclusively" proven tends to suggest (at least to the impartial reader) substantial but not certain proof; "unproven" suggests a striking lack of evidence. Play your word games, but impartial readers can tell the difference.
And I completely understand your point - you don't like gays acting like gays. That's EXACTLY my point. You appear to want gays to stay tightly hidden in the closet, so as not to upset anyone who (to use your favorite word) "chooses" to be upset. My view is that the closet is what is killing our young gays and shame on you for preferring suicides to acceptance.
Finally, I claim no power of divination - rather the simple power of listening, reasoning and evaluating. I commend it to you.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of two unarmed black teeagers being gunned down in a nine month span by armed men as "isolated instances" which are "not a good basis for public policy." Seems to me they are a perfect basis for examining some of our public policies.
You've resorted to condescension to try to defend your initial silly post.
There's a lot of distance between it not being "conclusively" established that sexual orientation is hard wired - your initial position - to your current "scientifically unproven." I do, however, admire your ability to change your contentions as needed to defend your evolving position.
I also admire your ability to say that in years gone by you could have referred to adulterers instead of pedophiles, without ever noticing that our society has moved on and largely decriminalized adultery, just as our society is evolving on the issue of gay rights.
What's odd, however, is that I don't recall people with sincerely held religious beliefs refusing to serve adulterers. One would think that adultery - clearly a matter of choice - would be the greater offense to the religious.
No, the whole gay rights/religious beliefs kerfuffle just seems to be prejudice hiding behind a holy face. No one is asking the sincerely religious to become gay; we are asking them not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services in their businesses.
So you think the various large banks that have agreed to pay fines measured in the billions of dollars don't think they did anything illegal? Really?
Not me. I think the large banks paying those huge fines know they acted illegally, that some human directed those illegal activities, and that the humans who directed those activities preferred to use money that should have gone to shareholders to pay those large fines so as to avoid individual prosecution.
I don't hate bankers (or anyone else for that matter); but I do think that law-breakers at every level (not just the poor) should be held to account for their criminal activity.
Increasingly in this country, that's not the case.
Last login: today
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.