Conservatives Must Win the Transgender Battle, For the Sake of Transgenders

[Chosen Daughter]

Here's a question for you Jazzhead.

If a homosexual company starts a tea shirt shop for the homosexual community and I come in wanting one of the scriptures in the Bible about homosexuality printed on a shirt can they refuse?  Will they happily print me a shirt saying homosexuality is a sin?  Can I bankrupt them for refusing service?  Are they bullies?

[INVAR]

Here's a question for you Jazzhead.

If a homosexual company starts a tea shirt shop for the homosexual community and I come in wanting one of the scriptures in the Bible about homosexuality printed on a shirt can they refuse?  Will they happily print me a shirt saying homosexuality is a sin?  Can I bankrupt them for refusing service?  Are they bullies?

You know the true answer to that.  Jazzy cannot answer that without rendering his own position he has taken on businesses fined and punished for refusal to provide for homosexual events as the hypocrisy it is.

But then again, in his mind you're a bigot shoving the bible down their throats to even ask for such a service knowing it is offensive to them.  YOU would be the bully in his estimation.

[Chosen Daughter]

You know the true answer to that.  Jazzy cannot answer that without rendering his own position he has taken on businesses fined and punished for refusal to provide for homosexual events as the hypocrisy it is.

But then again, in his mind you're a bigot shoving the bible down their throats to even ask for such a service knowing it is offensive to them.  YOU would be the bully in his estimation.

Exactly and their are many businesses catering to homosexuals.  Funny but if businesses are not inclusive of homosexuals they become targets.  We've seen it.  E Harmony was one.  Forced by the courts to create a separate dating service for gays only by the court.  But if its a gay business they don't have to serve up Christian services.  Gay travel companies don't have to have special travel packages for people of faith.

If I tried to force a gay corporation to serve up scripture do you think I could bankrupt them in court?

[Jazzhead]

Here's a question for you Jazzhead.

If a homosexual company starts a tea shirt shop for the homosexual community and I come in wanting one of the scriptures in the Bible about homosexuality printed on a shirt can they refuse?

  I would think so.  And a Christian tee-shirt company could likewise refuse to print a message it deems offensive.   The law doesn't proscribe discrimination with respect to an offensive political message. 

 

Will they happily print me a shirt saying homosexuality is a sin?

   Possibly, I don't know.  They are in business to make money.  Are you a paying customer?

Can I bankrupt them for refusing service?

  You can try.

  Are they bullies?

   Probably.  It would appear you think so.   

[INVAR]

  I would think so.  And a Christian tee-shirt company could likewise refuse to print a message it deems offensive.   The law doesn't proscribe discrimination with respect to an offensive political message. 

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Jazzhead

You just proved your entire argument over the last month to be the vapid 'freedom for me but not for thee' tripe we said it was.

[Chosen Daughter]

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Jazzhead

You just proved your entire argument over the last month to be the vapid 'freedom for me but not for thee' tripe we said it was.

Yep here is a list of companies and people targeted by homosexuals.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

  I would think so.  And a Christian tee-shirt company could likewise refuse to print a message it deems offensive.   The law doesn't proscribe discrimination with respect to an offensive political message. 

    Possibly, I don't know.  They are in business to make money.  Are you a paying customer?
  You can try.
   Probably.  It would appear you think so.   

That is as blatant a denial of freedom as forcing it down one's throat.

[Jazzhead]

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Jazzhead

You just proved your entire argument over the last month to be the vapid 'freedom for me but not for thee' tripe we said it was.

This I don't understand.  I said both the Christian and the gay tee-shirt companies could likely, as a legal matter, refuse to print an offensive political message.   Where's the hypocrisy?

I've always been a live and let live kind of guy.  But I admit that the sheer viciousness of the attacks by "Christians" here is radicalizing me.     
 

[Emjay]

@Jazzhead

You don't have to be religious to understand that stilling a beating heart takes an innocent life.  Even some atheists get it.  It's basic.

Classic liberal stance:  If you don't like abortion, don't get one.

Classic liberal stance #2:  A fetus is not a baby.  (It sure looks like one in those sonogram pictures)

[INVAR]

This I don't understand.  I said both the Christian and the gay tee-shirt companies could likely, as a legal matter, refuse to print an offensive political message.   Where's the hypocrisy?

You're the person who vehemently argued that a person who refuses to bake a cake or sell flowers for a homosexual event that Christians find offensive was bigoted, discriminatory, illegal and deserving of punishment.

I've always been a live and let live kind of guy.  But I admit that the sheer viciousness of the attacks by "Christians" here is radicalizing me.   

Don't bother lying to us.  You have been radical all along, wrongly thinking that if you attempted to couch your radicalism in reasonable-sounding justification of liberalism, we wouldn't notice and let you slip in among the sheep like the wolf you are.   
 

[Silver Pines]

Classic liberal stance:  If you don't like abortion, don't get one.

Classic liberal stance #2:  A fetus is not a baby.  (It sure looks like one in those sonogram pictures)

@Emjay

I don't know what they think it is...a dolphin?  An otter?

It's a human life, and its heart starts to beat on the sixteenth day.  It's not there to be snuffed out at anyone's convenience.  The right to murder does not exist.

[Chosen Daughter]

This I don't understand.  I said both the Christian and the gay tee-shirt companies could likely, as a legal matter, refuse to print an offensive political message.   Where's the hypocrisy?

I've always been a live and let live kind of guy.  But I admit that the sheer viciousness of the attacks by "Christians" here is radicalizing me.     
 

This



http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

Is vicious.

Homosexuals are searching out opportunities to literally ruin people financially because they know they can.  Looking to take everything they have and make a fortune doing it.

[TomSea]

Homosexual marriage was the Pandoras box, that we warned once opened - could never be shut, and every form of deviance would be forced upon the culture by the force of shame and law.

As pointed out in another thread from @Cripplecreek, Conservatives were told at the Convention that if we refused to support Homosexual Marriage, there was the door.

In the near future, the "Conservatives" who now run the GOP will tell us if we do not accept Transgenderism, Pedophelia, Polygamy and Beastiality as inherent rights - the door is over there.

Conservatism has already been rendered irrelevant in the age Trump, and the avalanche into lawfully protected and encouraged deviancy is already rolling down the mountainside.

So the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage and it's Trump's fault. Got it.

 

[verga]

Day late and dollar short Conservatives have been saying this for several years now.

[libertybele]

Classic liberal stance:  If you don't like abortion, don't get one.

Classic liberal stance #2:  A fetus is not a baby.  (It sure looks like one in those sonogram pictures)

The just-conceived prenatal life form is called a zygote. While migrating down the woman's Fallopian tube to her uterus, it is named a morula, and from days five to 12 post-conception, a blastocyst. The blastocyst implants in the nutrient-rich lining of the mother's uterus. From day 12 through week six, this being is termed an embryo.

According to the American Pregnancy Association, "everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the small embryo." From week seven until birth, it is named a fetus.

Pro-choicers frequently do not dispute that the prenatal life form is biologically alive. At the same time, as Dalton Conley observes, they view the fetus as "an individual under construction" and thus not yet a person. They do disagree about when in that construction process it becomes a baby. That transition might occur, for example, at certain milestones in brain development; at viability, the earliest age the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb, which is currently around 20 to 24 weeks; or at the moment of birth...

http://www.livestrong.com/article/256004-when-does-the-fetus-become-a-baby/

[Smokin Joe]

He can't because it isn't there.  Gays could have had Civil Unions but they were going for marriage exactly to undermine others freedom to believe God is true and His Word is True.  For them undermining the very meaning of marriage was about undermining God.  If you can break down Gods Word until it is irrelevant to society you have made Christianity irrelevant.  We see it now in major church denominations.  Gay Priests and Pastors.  No such thing to God and they would have to ignore almost every part of Gods Word concerning a righteous life.

If the total destruction of two cities isn't message enough of what The Almighty thinks of that abomination, I don't know what it will take to get through to these people. Maybe an eternity?

[Chosen Daughter]

If the total destruction of two cities isn't message enough of what The Almighty thinks of that abomination, I don't know what it will take to get through to these people. Maybe an eternity?

Quite possible

[Jazzhead]

You're the person who vehemently argued that a person who refuses to bake a cake or sell flowers for a homosexual event that Christians find offensive was bigoted, discriminatory, illegal and deserving of punishment.

Well, that's for the courts to decide.   What, do you think I have it in for bakers?   It's in the nature of the service they provide.  Bakers make cakes, for celebrating occasions.   The tee shirt vendor is in the business of printing custom messages on shirts.  Of course he can refuse to print a message he finds objectionable.   He just posts a sign.   Just like "no shirts, no service," it's easy as pie.   

I liked the way National Review did it years ago.   In their personals section (yep, they used to run personal ads),  they'd say they extend maximum freedom,  but NR's idea of freedom may not be the same as the advertiser.   That's gentle, and conveys the message.

If the baker wants to discriminate,  he's got to be smart about it.   As I've suggested before,  say he'll only cater religious weddings.   Say he reserves the right to refuse to write an offensive message.   But he can't arbitrarily refuse to sell the service he advertises to sell because he wants to play good Christian soldier in the culture wars.  Not in the conduct of public commerce.       

Don't bother lying to us.  You have been radical all along, wrongly thinking that if you attempted to couch your radicalism in reasonable-sounding justification of liberalism, we wouldn't notice and let you slip in among the sheep like the wolf you are.

I'm a policy wonk;  what floats my boat is the mechanics of public policy, that's why I post a lot about ACA.   I like to get under the hood.    I'm a Goldwater Republican who voted for Perot in '92 and didn't vote for Trump in '16.  Neither did you - we have something in common.

 I'm a deeply disaffected Christian.    Getting more disaffected all the time, too; like I said, your viciousness is just astonishing.  Is that how you think Christ acted?  I have gay relatives and friends,  who've married in recent years, and they live quiet, productive, honest, joyous and virtuous lives.   Of course I defend them; that's what friends do.  Because they are virtuous, and I believe that is what God wants us to be.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm a deeply disaffected Christian.    Getting more disaffected all the time, too; like I said, your viciousness is just astonishing.  Is that how you think Christ acted?  I have gay relatives and friends,  who've married in recent years, and they live quiet, productive, honest, joyous and virtuous lives.   Of course I defend them; that's what friends do.  Because they are virtuous, and I believe that is what God wants us to be.

You have described what God declared abomination, not just through inspired Word, but through the complete destruction of two cities, as "virtuous behaviour".
You have defended the ACA, I believe, not just out of your fundamental love for Statism, but because of the Trillion + dollar tab it would pick up for the 1.3 million (and growing) number of those affected with HIV/AIDS over the next 25 or so years of their lives, and the anticipation of of the additional expense for those not yet infected being borne by those who don't engage in the sorts of behaviour which infected the overwhelming majority of those people--people, who, by 'virtue' of their choices could not get insurance coverage.
You insist that the relationship between God and the Church, mirrored in the marriage of a man and a woman, is essentially the same as the very act that is abomination, and insist on using the word "marriage" to describe the "just civil unions" you advocate between same-sex partners.
You have a far greater love for the sins of man than the Word of God, and this becomes increasingly evident in your posts, not just in the content, but even the wording. We have eyes, we see. This fools no one, except perhaps yourself.
You glory in using the power of the state to impose penalties on those who will not bend to the abomination and serve it.
Disaffected? Certainly. You seem to have placed the words of men ahead of The Almighty, and when you walk so far away Him, it is a small wonder you feel so far from Christ.
Just remember, He didn't abandon you, you have abandoned Him.

[Jazzhead]

Pro-choicers frequently do not dispute that the prenatal life form is biologically alive. At the same time, as Dalton Conley observes, they view the fetus as "an individual under construction" and thus not yet a person. They do disagree about when in that construction process it becomes a baby. That transition might occur, for example, at certain milestones in brain development; at viability, the earliest age the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb, which is currently around 20 to 24 weeks; or at the moment of birth...

I look at it a bit differently.   From a legal perspective, the question is the power of the state to compel an individual to give birth.   That's quite different from the moral perspective, where the question is the power and the will of the woman to do the right thing. 

I think it is fundamental to require consent to the provision of personal service to another.  That's why slavery is unlawful.   A woman must consent to bringing a zygote/embryo/fetus to term.  She must voluntarily agree to assume a duty of care toward the nascent child.  As a LEGAL matter, I mean.  As a condition of the state compelling her to give birth.   So I don't think the government should be able to ban abortion before the woman has had the chance to give, or be deemed to give by the passage of time,  that consent.   How long should that period of time be?  That's hard to say.  Certainly before the fetus becomes viable,  I'd think.     

[Jazzhead]

Just remember, He didn't abandon you, you have abandoned Him.

That's what you think.  But religion is an institution of man, not God.   

Religion is not a prerequisite to faith.   

[Smokin Joe]

I look at it a bit differently.   From a legal perspective, the question is the power of the state to compel an individual to give birth.   That's quite different from the moral perspective, where the question is the power and the will of the woman to do the right thing. 

I think it is fundamental to require consent to the provision of personal service to another.  That's why slavery is unlawful.   A woman must consent to bringing a zygote/embryo/fetus to term.  She must voluntarily agree to assume a duty of care toward the nascent child.  As a LEGAL matter, I mean.  As a condition of the state compelling her to give birth.   So I don't think the government should be able to ban abortion before the woman has had the chance to give, or be deemed to give by the passage of time,  that consent.   How long should that period of time be?  That's hard to say.  Certainly before the fetus becomes viable,  I'd think.     

Compel Birth? The state did not compel conception, now, did it? Birth is just the natural end of that process. It is what will ordinarily occur, barring complications, not a compulsion any more than water running down hill--a natural process you would advocate interrupting by unnatural means.
As for viability, most humans can't even scrounge garbage cans until they are two or three to find food. Would you use the viability argument against them, too? That suckling child isn't viable, so it can be killed? How far are you willing to go with this nonsense, to deny what is normal and natural to enshrine your laws? Murder, obviously, isn't too far.

[libertybele]

 I'm a deeply disaffected Christian.    Getting more disaffected all the time, too; like I said, your viciousness is just astonishing.  Is that how you think Christ acted?  I have gay relatives and friends,  who've married in recent years, and they live quiet, productive, honest, joyous and virtuous lives.   Of course I defend them; that's what friends do.  Because they are virtuous, and I believe that is what God wants us to be.

I'm somewhat confused by your statement. How do you figure that someone who is a LGTB be virtuous?  The Bible (God's word) specifically condemns homosexuality.  I don't see how you consider a  gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual as having high moral standards when their sexual preferences are immoral.

To each his own? If it only it were that simple.  I strongly object being made by our government to accept their immoral lifestyle and behavior.  A legal civil union perhaps is one thing, but an ordained priest marrying a gay couple is quite another. Having and mandating transgender bathrooms are overkill.  Fining a couple because they refused to bake a cake for a gay couple was dead wrong. Above all else, SCOTUS ruling as they did on gay marriage was wrong as they are only supposed to rule as to the interpretation of the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage.

[Smokin Joe]

Above all else, SCOTUS ruling as they did on gay marriage was wrong as they are only supposed to rule as to the interpretation of the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage.

There is no Constitutional Authority for the SCOTUS to regulate marriage in any way. In fact, to do so flies in the face of the First Amendment.

[Norm Lenhart]

 I'm a deeply disaffected Christian.    Getting more disaffected all the time, too; like I said, your viciousness is just astonishing.  Is that how you think Christ acted?  I have gay relatives and friends,  who've married in recent years, and they live quiet, productive, honest, joyous and virtuous lives.   Of course I defend them; that's what friends do.  Because they are virtuous, and I believe that is what God wants us to be.

No, you're a typical liberal. What you just typed is that you expect Christ/Christianity to comply with what you believe to be true. And when it does not, then it's Christ/Christianity that is the problem.

That is E X A C T L Y the way you view conservatism. You believe X is conservative and when the whole of conservative thought/principle conflicts with your view, then it is conservatism that is wrong/must change to your belief structure.

Religion or political philosophies do not change for you. You either change/align yourself to them or you arent part of them. Your beliefs are different. So it is the height of absurdity that you claim to be what your entire premise and actions show you are not.

Conservatives are not pro gay agenda, pro tranny, pro abortion legality, pro Obamacare or pro arrest and fine Christians for following their faith. Nor is the Constitution. But liberals are.