[talaniman]

So there is a law for Christians and a different one for everybody else?

[cdad]

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isn't it?

[speechlesstx]

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

If no discriminates against a protected class, they can't. It's not difficult. They can't discriminate against black people even if their religion tells them to do it. Same thing with gays.

You STILL think your religious rights trump a gays right. I don't know why you think you're special..

Excon

[talaniman]

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isnt it?

DOMA Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy Seen As Key Vote As Supreme Court Decides On DOMA This Month | KpopStarz

[Alty]

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

Sigh. For the third time:

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

[talaniman]

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Such a sign would be illegal.

[paraclete]

Sigh. For the third time:

This is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint

[Wondergirl]

this is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint

So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

[paraclete]

So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

What you are denying here is the right to change your mind or uphold a principle. The community doesn't like it when Chrsitian principles are upheld. It likes to pay lip service to everything. As a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them

[Wondergirl]

as a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them

What??

[Tuttyd]

oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer ... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .

I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list


love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable" ..and yet the left still champions these remedies.

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

[paraclete]

What?????

Don't you understand english?

[tomder55]

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

You know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

[Tuttyd]

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

Probably they did. But most were not scholars of Marx.

There is no way to prove this, but I suspect that the list was something tacked on towards the end of the largely Marxian contribution. Possibly at the behest of Engels.

P.S. Someone ought to consider changing that wikipedia entry.

[speechlesstx]

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevant.

[paraclete]

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens should share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

[speechlesstx]

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens shoudl share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

So let's forget about the American dream, that's so yesterday.

[talaniman]

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevent.

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

[speechlesstx]

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

Excuse me, but how is it unreasonable to refer them to someone else? It isn't, the only side being unreasonable is yours, I've asked several times if there is a point at which forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs crosses a line and all I've gotten were crickets chirping. If there is a point, where is that line? I'm asking - either there is a point or there isn't, which is it?

You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

Oh spare me the self-righteous crap, I'm the one trying to be flexible enough to make everyone happy. Reminds of that stupid "coexist" bumper sticker I saw this morning, you guys don't want to coexist with us at all - unless we adopt your views and behave the way you want. Sorry dude, but that ain't happening - it just pi$$es you guys off that we won't shut and go away or bow to your superior wisdom.