tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 0:21:45 GMT -5
So you can refuse to provide service yo African Americans if it is against your religion? Yes according to the court. If you owned a print shop and a full blooded hard core crazy person came into your print shop and wanted you to print up 10,000 copies of a flyer that says kill all Jews and blacks, you can legally refuse service. Whats wrong with that? This is what the court finalized. You could have done that before. Hate speech meant to incite violence or imminent lawless action has never been protected even under the First Amendment, much less public accommodation law. Try again.
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on Jul 1, 2023 0:53:34 GMT -5
I’m so glad that publicly chartered corporations have now been given the right to discriminate against anyone they want to. How cute.
If you ask me, any business turning down business, especially a referral type business such as this one, is idiotic beyond all comprehension. Let the competition make the $$$. And please go banko because of missing cash flow you doinks.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 1, 2023 2:07:50 GMT -5
I guess it depends on what you call a "service" ...... ie If you are self employed to mow peoples lawns, you can put anyone on the books you want...... Whats to stop you?
If you are a trauma nurse working in a Hospital ... You can't say "In not touching him because he is Gay" because your employers expect you to deliver a service.
We had a long running court case where a bakery refused to ice a cake with "Support Gay Marriage" because it was against their religion.
So you have the human rights of Freedom of Sexual Orientation vs the human rights of Freedom of Religion,
It took 7 years of legal wrangling, ending up at the European Court of Human Rights (where they ruled in favour of the bakery)
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 5:42:27 GMT -5
So you can refuse to provide service yo African Americans if it is against your religion? Yes according to the court. If you owned a print shop and a full blooded hard core crazy person came into your print shop and wanted you to print up 10,000 copies of a flyer that says kill all Jews and blacks, you can legally refuse service. Whats wrong with that? This is what the court finalized. Not what I asked. Can you refuse service solely because they are black because it is against their religion. If not, how is that different than what the person in this case did. Can’t wait for your erudite answer
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 5:43:55 GMT -5
I guess it depends on what you call a "service" ...... ie If you are self employed to mow peoples lawns, you can put anyone on the books you want...... Whats to stop you? If you are a trauma nurse working in a Hospital ... You can't say "In not touching him because he is Gay" because your employers expect you to deliver a service. We had a long running court case where a bakery refused to ice a cake with "Support Gay Marriage" because it was against their religion. So you have the human rights of Freedom of Sexual Orientation vs the human rights of Freedom of Religion, It took 7 years of legal wrangling, ending up at the European Court of Human Rights (where they ruled in favour of the bakery) Pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for birth con. I can’t wait for a case about a nurse that you describe up there. Just want to know how far this court will go
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 8:12:24 GMT -5
So you can refuse to provide service yo African Americans if it is against your religion? Yes according to the court. If you owned a print shop and a full blooded hard core crazy person came into your print shop and wanted you to print up 10,000 copies of a flyer that says kill all Jews and blacks, you can legally refuse service. Whats wrong with that? This is what the court finalized. How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 8:15:45 GMT -5
Yes according to the court. If you owned a print shop and a full blooded hard core crazy person came into your print shop and wanted you to print up 10,000 copies of a flyer that says kill all Jews and blacks, you can legally refuse service. Whats wrong with that? This is what the court finalized. How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? I was going to ask that exact question. Bet the answer would be different if it was a white and Asian couple. Can’t wait to see the notes Clarence Thomas would tie himself in over that question
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 8:35:04 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jul 1, 2023 8:41:18 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. That's what I'm seeing as well. But one weird thing, there was no real court case to get it to the Supreme Court. Apparently this was a woman that is going to open a design company saying she is going to deny service to some people. She hasn't actually denied service and no one has objected. It's very possible no one will even be interested in her services. It's weird that it got to the Supreme Court.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 1, 2023 8:52:08 GMT -5
How about a sane, interracial couple wanting 500 copies of a flyer printed regarding their upcoming marriage and the printer believes the bible states people of different races who marry commit a mortal sin and it would be a violation of his religious and free speech rights to print the fliers. Good for America? I was going to ask that exact question. Bet the answer would be different if it was a white and Asian couple. Can’t wait to see the notes Clarence Thomas would tie himself in over that question I'm guessing "knots" got autocorrected to "notes" here. if so, I made that exact comment when Thomas conveniently left Loving out of the list of cases he openly welcomed challenges to, in his concurring opinion for Dobbs. between this and his vote on AA, he's a hypocritical POS.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,055
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jul 1, 2023 8:57:59 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. That's what I'm seeing as well. But one weird thing, there was no real court case to get it to the Supreme Court. Apparently this was a woman that is going to open a design company saying she is going to deny service to some people. She hasn't actually denied service and no one has objected. It's very possible no one will even be interested in her services. It's weird that it got to the Supreme Court. That's what I saw, too. Some reporter decided to follow up on the names of the gay couple mentioned in legal filings. Turns out no one had contacted them before this - they had never worked with her, requested any services, anything. In fact, she hadn't made any websites - as Later said, she was GOING to open a design company, and doing research discovered it was illegal to discriminate per her state laws. So who picked her as the poster child for this case?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 9:01:01 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. It opens the door though to other types of future discrimination. it's just we have not seen it yet but we will.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 9:09:28 GMT -5
That's what I'm seeing as well. But one weird thing, there was no real court case to get it to the Supreme Court. Apparently this was a woman that is going to open a design company saying she is going to deny service to some people. She hasn't actually denied service and no one has objected. It's very possible no one will even be interested in her services. It's weird that it got to the Supreme Court. That's what I saw, too. Some reporter decided to follow up on the names of the gay couple mentioned in legal filings. Turns out no one had contacted them before this - they had never worked with her, requested any services, anything. In fact, she hadn't made any websites - as Later said, she was GOING to open a design company, and doing research discovered it was illegal to discriminate per her state laws. So who picked her as the poster child for this case? In fact the man who allegedly contacted her is straight and in a straight marriage. Someone used his name and email address. Probably got it from a business letter address. The Bizarre — and Hypothetical — Case That Sparked the Supreme Court's Regressive LGBTQ+ Discrimination Ruling
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 9:11:58 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. It opens the door though to other types of future discrimination. it's just we have not seen it yet but we will. Okay. So should the Supreme Court have ruled wrongly in this case to show they won't rule wrongly in future cases?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 9:19:31 GMT -5
It opens the door though to other types of future discrimination. it's just we have not seen it yet but we will. Okay. So should the Supreme Court have ruled wrongly in this case to show they won't rule wrongly in future cases? The Court should have mooted the case, given that there was no valid reason for it to have been either brought or heard. And the man whose name and information was wrongfully used should sue her for doing so.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 9:27:46 GMT -5
It opens the door though to other types of future discrimination. it's just we have not seen it yet but we will. Okay. So should the Supreme Court have ruled wrongly in this case to show they won't rule wrongly in future cases? Seeing there was no case before them, yes. It was a hypothetical case. A What If case.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 9:48:24 GMT -5
Okay. So should the Supreme Court have ruled wrongly in this case to show they won't rule wrongly in future cases? The Court should have mooted the case, given that there was no valid reason for it to have been either brought or heard. And the man whose name and information was wrongfully used should sue her for doing so. Okay. So should the Supreme Court have ruled wrongly in this case to show they won't rule wrongly in future cases? Seeing there was no case before them, yes. It was a hypothetical case. A What If case. Yet here we are.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2023 9:51:01 GMT -5
The Court should have mooted the case, given that there was no valid reason for it to have been either brought or heard. And the man whose name and information was wrongfully used should sue her for doing so. Seeing there was no case before them, yes. It was a hypothetical case. A What If case. Yet here we are. Cannot disagree with that. Now let's sit back and see where it leads us.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 9:52:26 GMT -5
The Court should have mooted the case, given that there was no valid reason for it to have been either brought or heard. And the man whose name and information was wrongfully used should sue her for doing so. Seeing there was no case before them, yes. It was a hypothetical case. A What If case. Yet here we are. Yes, having proven once again that this Court has become a politically-motivated joke on America.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 10:01:55 GMT -5
Cannot disagree with that. Now let's sit back and see where it leads us. And also do our part to have in place a President and Senate majority who can nominate and confirm new justices as the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 10:16:52 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. I think you are being naive. First of all, where is the line where it goes from not a burden to where it is enough interaction-work where this pertains. In addition, pharmacists are allowed to not fill prescriptions that go against their conscience. They may have little to no interaction with the patient. They do not do any of the cognitive work needed to prescribe the medication. Unless the patient requests a consultation with them, all they are doing is counting pills. Yet they are allowed to “follow their conscience”.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 10:24:05 GMT -5
Thought this was a good statement that gives the true nature of the ruling. “The decision today does not approve discrimination by anybody and everybody that uses some creativity, some talent, some skill to create a custom product,” (Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group) added. “The decision today addresses a particular thing and describes that thing as involving extensive involvement with the customer to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.” It clearly does not cover a person who is handed a piece of paper to put into a machine and press print. It does not cover a person who is taking or cooking a food order, even if asked to customize the burger by holding the pickles. I think you are being naive. First of all, where is the line where it goes from not a burden to where it is enough interaction-work where this pertains. In addition, pharmacists are allowed to not fill prescriptions that go against their conscience. They may have little to no interaction with the patient. They do not do any of the cognitive work needed to prescribe the medication. Unless the patient requests a consultation with them, all they are doing is counting pills. Yet they are allowed to “follow their conscience”. I will grant you that drawing that line is challenging. Life is messy. Not sure how your whataboutism is relevant to this case.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 10:38:53 GMT -5
I think you are being naive. First of all, where is the line where it goes from not a burden to where it is enough interaction-work where this pertains. In addition, pharmacists are allowed to not fill prescriptions that go against their conscience. They may have little to no interaction with the patient. They do not do any of the cognitive work needed to prescribe the medication. Unless the patient requests a consultation with them, all they are doing is counting pills. Yet they are allowed to “follow their conscience”. I will grant you that drawing that line is challenging. Life is messy. Not sure how your whataboutism is relevant to this case. It isn’t whataboutism. These cases all have to do with how much discrimination is allowed. If people can discriminate in the workplace because they disagree with your lifestyle, where do you draw the line. Is it ok to refuse to bake a cake, design a website, fill a prescription, refuse medical care, refuse to defend someone as a public defender, or any myriad of public interactions because someone’s “lifestyle” is against your beliefs? That is essentially what conservatives want. To not have to provide any services or interact at all with people who, by living their lives, disgust them. That is what this case is as about. And this one was all hypothetical.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 10:50:51 GMT -5
In my opinion, most if not all "religious liberty" claims are bullsh**, and are more an attempt to have validated one's bigotry rather than "protect" one's religious beliefs. We have a greater responsibility to not harm others than we do to indulge ourselves.
Nobody is forced to go into any particular line of work. If your choice presents a conflict between your duty to society (including ALL of its members) and your belief in what your religion requires, you should either choose a more suitable line of work or a better religion (or at least a better reading of it.) Using one to justify the other is indicative of your unworthiness to be part of a free society. True Christians do not hold such beliefs. Hypocrites do.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 11:09:22 GMT -5
I will grant you that drawing that line is challenging. Life is messy. Not sure how your whataboutism is relevant to this case. It isn’t whataboutism. These cases all have to do with how much discrimination is allowed. If people can discriminate in the workplace because they disagree with your lifestyle, where do you draw the line. Is it ok to refuse to bake a cake, design a website, fill a prescription, refuse medical care, refuse to defend someone as a public defender, or any myriad of public interactions because someone’s “lifestyle” is against your beliefs? That is essentially what conservatives want. To not have to provide any services or interact at all with people who, by living their lives, disgust them. That is what this case is as about. And this one was all hypothetical. And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 11:33:07 GMT -5
It isn’t whataboutism. These cases all have to do with how much discrimination is allowed. If people can discriminate in the workplace because they disagree with your lifestyle, where do you draw the line. Is it ok to refuse to bake a cake, design a website, fill a prescription, refuse medical care, refuse to defend someone as a public defender, or any myriad of public interactions because someone’s “lifestyle” is against your beliefs? That is essentially what conservatives want. To not have to provide any services or interact at all with people who, by living their lives, disgust them. That is what this case is as about. And this one was all hypothetical. And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse. But that is not what the Supreme Court decided. They held that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions that offend the beliefs. They don’t even have to ensure it can be filled elsewhere. People will incorporate their private businesses. Are they public or private? Are they allowed to discriminate even though they benefit from laws of incorporation?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 11:35:26 GMT -5
In my opinion, most if not all "religious liberty" claims are bullsh**, and are more an attempt to have validated one's bigotry rather than "protect" one's religious beliefs. We have a greater responsibility to not harm others than we do to indulge ourselves. Nobody is forced to go into any particular line of work. If your choice presents a conflict between your duty to society (including ALL of its members) and your belief in what your religion requires, you should either choose a more suitable line of work or a better religion (or at least a better reading of it.) Using one to justify the other is indicative of your unworthiness to be part of a free society. True Christians do not hold such beliefs. Hypocrites do. I basically agree with this. However for me there is an additional point. An acceptance of these flawed human beings also is indicative of worthiness to be part of a free society
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2023 11:46:30 GMT -5
And they are about an individual's right to live their life following their conscience. There are two people involved in each public interaction. If you are acting as an individual, you should have the right to refuse in all those situations listed. If you are working for or as a corporation or government entity, no you shouldn't have the right to refuse. But that is not what the Supreme Court decided. They held that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions that offend the beliefs. They don’t even have to ensure it can be filled elsewhere. People will incorporate their private businesses. Are they public or private? Are they allowed to discriminate even though they benefit from laws of incorporation? I disagree with the SC ruling on pharmacists. Because society through our government grants benefits to those who apply for corporation status, I think that it is legitimate to require as a condition of continued approval that they follow non-discrimination practices. If they find they can not in good conscience do so, they should have full free choice to dissolve the corporation.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2023 11:49:50 GMT -5
But that is not what the Supreme Court decided. They held that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions that offend the beliefs. They don’t even have to ensure it can be filled elsewhere. People will incorporate their private businesses. Are they public or private? Are they allowed to discriminate even though they benefit from laws of incorporation? I disagree with the SC ruling on pharmacists. Because society through our government grants benefits to those who apply for corporation status, I think that it is legitimate to require as a condition of continued approval that they follow non-discrimination practices. If they find they can not in good conscience do so, they should have full free choice to dissolve the corporation. I agree on both points. That isn’t what the Supreme Court has said in these cases. If every employee has to have their religious objections catered to, companies will have no control over delivery of their products
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2023 11:57:15 GMT -5
In my opinion, most if not all "religious liberty" claims are bullsh**, and are more an attempt to have validated one's bigotry rather than "protect" one's religious beliefs. We have a greater responsibility to not harm others than we do to indulge ourselves. Nobody is forced to go into any particular line of work. If your choice presents a conflict between your duty to society (including ALL of its members) and your belief in what your religion requires, you should either choose a more suitable line of work or a better religion (or at least a better reading of it.) Using one to justify the other is indicative of your unworthiness to be part of a free society. True Christians do not hold such beliefs. Hypocrites do. I basically agree with this. However for me there is an additional point. An acceptance of these flawed human beings also is indicative of worthiness to be part of a free society Yes, but that does not mean that we accept the flawed behavior. Isn't it analogous to the old, "Hate the sin, love the sinner" that Christians are ACTUALLY called to do? Regardless, the denial of anyone else's rights or humanity are NEVER acceptable. Social conservatives apparently believe otherwise, which is why they are on the wrong side of virtually every issue.
|
|