Arizona Governor vetoes discrimination bill

[IndyDave1776]

Jesus befriended and washed the feet of a prostitute. This act of respect could easily be seen by many as condoning her lifestyle but in reality he was trying to help her foster her relationship with God. This same man wouldn't make a wedding arbor for a gay marriage? Absolutely he would! He would use that opportunity to engage the person and help them see that God is all forgiving and loving? In many cases Jesus performed acts that might have seen as him condoning the sin of the sinner. In every case he used that opportunity to show God's forgiveness.

Now, let me clarify. It's my belief that if you want to be a Christian you should serve as Jesus did. To the best of your ability. But it's not the government's job to force us to.

You must have flunked out of theology class. Back to the political issue at hand, how is it reasonable to expect people to actively assist in an activity which directly conflicts with their personal convictions? You may notice that Christ never assisted anyone in wrong behavior. He treated them with kindness and told them to stop sinning, so how do you come up with the idea that a Christian should actively assist in orchestrating a gay marriage which his religion unambiguously holds as an abomination? The point: If you are going to make a religious argument concerning the behavior of others, you do not get the luxury of defining their beliefs for them, especially when your interpretation stands in direct conflict with the book defining that religion to such an extent as to be laughable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, no-one can answer the question. Just who was this bill aimed at? We all know who it was aimed at, but its supporters just refuse to acknowledge the painful truth. They were wanting protected class privilege for their discrimination. And we know who they wanted to discriminate against.

Some libertarian you are if you honestly believe that anyone should be forced to participate in an activity which stands in direct conflict with their convictions, or even participate in something they don't want to. In fact, wouldn't forcing anyone to act against their own choice (not to be confused with being allowed to act against others, which is clearly not the case here) be a violation of the libertarian gold-standard NAP?

 

[Trooper]

You must have flunked out of theology class. Back to the political issue at hand, how is it reasonable to expect people to actively assist in an activity which directly conflicts with their personal convictions? You may notice that Christ never assisted anyone in wrong behavior. He treated them with kindness and told them to stop sinning, so how do you come up with the idea that a Christian should actively assist in orchestrating a gay marriage which his religion unambiguously holds as an abomination? The point: If you are going to make a religious argument concerning the behavior of others, you do not get the luxury of defining their beliefs for them, especially when your interpretation stands in direct conflict with the book defining that religion to such an extent as to be laughable.

He was really pushing the edge on religion discussion there.

BTW, his definition is Gnostism and not Christianity if you are into labels. And if we look at the text as historical documents, Yeshu'a never countered the teachings of Judaism, only the hypocrisy of the practices. Yeshu'a was not a rebellious person but claimed to be inline with his Father's will. From a Jewish point of view, Yeshu'a lived, practiced Judaism (orthodox) and has a historical position. In this vein we might discuss this topic. But not as a discussion of faith. ROE

But you are right, outsiders seem to want to impose their definition how the group should believe. Like everyone telling conservatives what they believe. It is sometimes fun to tweak them and tell them what they "believe" just to give them a taste of their medicine.

 

[IndyDave1776]

He was really pushing the edge on religion discussion there.

BTW, his definition is Gnostism and not Christianity if you are into labels. And if we look at the text as historical documents, Yeshu'a never countered the teachings of Judaism, only the hypocrisy of the practices. Yeshu'a was not a rebellious person but claimed to be inline with his Father's will. From a Jewish point of view, Yeshu'a lived, practiced Judaism (orthodox) and has a historical position. In this vein we might discuss this topic. But not as a discussion of faith. ROE

But you are right, outsiders seem to want to impose their definition how the group should believe. Like everyone telling conservatives what they believe. It is sometimes fun to tweak them and tell them what they "believe" just to give them a taste of their medicine.

Good assessment. I guess I didn't see the Gnosticism in it since it was off the core curriculum and smacked to me of simply using scripture as source material to prove a point. In any event, it was quite a detour into the realm of a doctrinal argument rather than the issue at hand of using the government to force people to act against their own convictions. As many times as I have encountered personnel at businesses who declare they don't do [goods or services] with a good explanation, a bad explanation, or no explanation whatsoever, I fail to see the problem with encountering a shopkeeper who is unwilling to violate his or her religion and is likely inclined to politely explain the problem issue and recommend finding a provider without such compunctions.

 

[Trooper]

Good assessment. I guess I didn't see the Gnosticism in it since it was off the core curriculum and smacked to me of simply using scripture as source material to prove a point. In any event, it was quite a detour into the realm of a doctrinal argument rather than the issue at hand of using the government to force people to act against their own convictions. As many times as I have encountered personnel at businesses who declare they don't do [goods or services] with a good explanation, a bad explanation, or no explanation whatsoever, I fail to see the problem with encountering a shopkeeper who is unwilling to violate his or her religion and is likely inclined to politely explain the problem issue and recommend finding a provider without such compunctions.

Most of us just want to live a peaceful life. We do not want the constant soap opera that the left is presenting nationally on social issues. At some point the left-wing activists will push too far and we will have a civil war. we will split this nation into several. I do not want that to happen but we are more divided today than we were going into the Civil War. I have no idea how to head this off.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Most of us just want to live a peaceful life. We do not want the constant soap opera that the left is presenting nationally on social issues. At some point the left-wing activists will push too far and we will have a civil war. we will split this nation into several. I do not want that to happen but we are more divided today than we were going into the Civil War. I have no idea how to head this off.

I agree. I don't feel that being left alone is an unreasonable expectation, nor do I see it happening. I also agree with the event which will necessarily result from this, which itself stands to be seriously problematic for my goal of being left alone. I guess we just aren't going to win in the quest for a peaceful, quiet life.

 

[IndyGal65]

Most of us just want to live a peaceful life. We do not want the constant soap opera that the right is presenting nationally on social issues. At some point the right-wing activists will push too far and we will have a civil war. we will split this nation into several. I do not want that to happen but we are more divided today than we were going into the Civil War. I have no idea how to head this off.

FIFY.

 

[traderdan]

FIFY.

Oh..wait..The right wing activists are trying to change the way marriage is defined?? Being activists? Those drama queens!! They had me fooled completely!

 

[Shadow8088]

I have no idea how to head this off.

Cut the head off the snake and ditch the extremists on both sides.... problem solved...

 

[Trooper]

Cut the head off the snake and ditch the extremists on both sides.... problem solved...

It appears that the greatest extremists are the libertarians here on INGO. They have purity tests and out of reason demands. They want unlimited gun rights. Just think, if libertarians were just more "reasonable" we could end gun violence through one party rule.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It appears that the greatest extremists are the libertarians here on INGO. They have purity tests and out of reason demands. They want unlimited gun rights. Just think, if libertarians were just more "reasonable" we could end gun violence through one party rule.

Are the Dems and Reps the only ones allowed to be ridiculously unreasonable?

 

[Trooper]

Are the Dems and Reps the only ones allowed to be ridiculously unreasonable?

No just showing that there are all sorts of extremism. Even moderates have their issues.....

 

[jamil]

No just showing that there are all sorts of extremism. Even moderates have their issues.....

Yeah, I've witnessed some extreme moderation in my time.

 

[Trooper]

Yeah, I've witnessed some extreme moderation in my time.

Well... their dislike of any form of strong opinion is a problem. They seem to drift thru life wanting to have everything nice-nice. Sort of like the popular kids in high school.

 

[IndyDave1776]

FIFY.

I am not sure that is much of a 'fix'. It seems to me that my core political belief of 'Read the Constitution, do what it says, and don't do what it doesn't say' lands me square in the middle of the 'extremist' camp so far as anyone left of center is concerned. Given that this has been the law since 1787, I fail to see where it is out of line.

On a more practical level, most right-leaning people have a political agenda which comes down to being left alone (unless, of course, we are talking about Texas which is a horse of a different color). The left seems much more inclined imposing their ideas of right and proper and micromanaging the lives of others with the notorious exception of the 'War on Drugs' which needs flushed. So far as I am concerned, this vetoed bill was spot on. No one should be compelled to do anything for anyone, particularly when it violates the beliefs to which they have a constitutional right.

If anyone is left with questions about who likes micromanaging others better, I would refer you to the F.D.Roosevelt administration which brought us unprecedented government intrusion in our lives.

 

[jamil]

Well... their dislike of any form of strong opinion is a problem. They seem to drift thru life wanting to have everything nice-nice. Sort of like the popular kids in high school.

I was kidding you know.

But I don't think I've met an individual moderate who is moderate on everything. "Moderate" is a way to aggregate all positions in all subjects into one rating. In other words, most people are "moderate" in the same way that average is average.

 

[MisterChester]

Yeah, I've witnessed some extreme moderation in my time.

Radical centrists are a dying breed these days.

 

[MisterChester]

It appears that the greatest extremists are the libertarians here on INGO. They have purity tests and out of reason demands. They want unlimited gun rights. Just think, if libertarians were just more "reasonable" we could end gun violence through one party rule.

You have the purists and you have the realists. Purists have their heart in the right place but not their brain. They seem to want end all be all victories instead of taking a bunch of small victories that eventually add up. That's how a lot of the anti-gun states got away with it, they stripped gun rights bite by little bite until they became de facto no-issue carry states with draconian ownership laws.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You have the purists and you have the realists. Purists have their heart in the right place but not their brain. They seem to want end all be all victories instead of taking a bunch of small victories that eventually add up. That's how a lot of the anti-gun states got away with it, they stripped gun rights bite by little bite until they became de facto no-issue carry states with draconian ownership laws.

Good point. The communists codified in writing what they called the 'long march through the institutions' following this principle. As we can see in the contemporary United States, the principle worked exactly as it was supposed to.

 

[Trooper]

You have the purists and you have the realists. Purists have their heart in the right place but not their brain. They seem to want end all be all victories instead of taking a bunch of small victories that eventually add up. That's how a lot of the anti-gun states got away with it, they stripped gun rights bite by little bite until they became de facto no-issue carry states with draconian ownership laws.

The all or nothing purists do not understand how the left has been successful. That they did it over decades. Just as someone says, in reference to the gay marriage battle, that "well no one is coming into your church and telling you what to believe". My answer is not yet. But the activists constantly push, they make it a soap opera for entertainment on the news. But slowly, ever slowly, they put their morality into place. They make it the conventional wisdom. Thus kids graduate college thinking that this is the way the world works. And that if you believe in freedom or faith or individual rights then you are an extremist.