First they came for gays....

First they came for gays. And I didn't protest because I wasn't gay.

Then they came for blacks, And I didn't protest because I wasn't black.

Then they came for pregnant women. And I didn't protest because I wasn't a woman

Then they came for non-Christians. And I didn't protest because I was a Christian.*

Then they came for people on Obamacare. And I didn't protest because I didn't have pre-existing conditions

Then they came for Medicare, And I didn't protest because I wasn't elegible.

Then they came for Social Security. And I didn't protest because I wasn't retiring soon.​

...

What right do you think will be up next on the Supreme Court chopping block?


*Thanks @Alwayssa

 

I don't think it is any on the list. I think it will be religion, especially non-Christian religions on the chopping block. A Christian business is going to the Supreme Court in order not to serve Muslims or Atheists or Jews or Buddhists because his/her Bible says so. And all of this will be in the name of "religious freedom."

 

You are 100% correct!!!! And I'm devastated that I didn't include it. I still have time to edit it. So, if it's ok with you, I added it!

 

What exactly did they do to them when they "came" for them? Prison camps? Gas chambers? And how many? Tens? Hundreds? Millions?

Must have been really bad to make you that upset.

 

While I am not religious, I think that it is pretty clear that your fear-mongering is based in pure ignorance.

Don't Christians advocate the notion to love the sinner but hate the sin? What this means in practice is that they do not reject a person, rather they reject an act. How this has played out is that Christian bakers have refused to bake cakes for ceremonies that go against their religion (the act), while still happily serving a cake to homosexuals (the sinner) for any purpose that is not an act that goes against their religion.

 

Are you inciting an insurrection?

 

They are coming for your tax dollar. This list is crap.

 

Punish them for being... black, gay, women...

 

Hopefully not. But SCOTUS might!

 

LOL. So if the left have an insurrection against SCOTUS decisions, it will be the fault of SCOTUS? Is that what you're saying?

 

Why? If SCOTUS decided that it's ok to refuse services to people who are gay, why wouldn't they do the same if they refuse people who are jew?

Christians advocate for many things that MAGA-Christians don't follow.

 

That is terrible. They made them subject to the same laws as white men.

 

They allowed them to refuse service for a CEREMONY (an act) that they oppose on legitimate religious beliefs. They did NOT allow them to refuse service to someone on the basis that they are homosexual. It is not as if the baker would be fine with it if a heterosexual wedding planner came in and placed the order for the ceremony. It has NOTHING to do with the person ordering. It is only about the ceremony for which it is ordered.

How can you possibly not understand this obvious distinction?

Surely you understand this and are just playing dumb because you think misstating the facts benefits your argument.

 

Sure

 

Are you sure he is playing?

 

Not 100%.

 

It would be idiotic to have an insurrection against SCOTUS. I've never heard of any country ever in history having a successful insurrection against the judicial branch of government.

 

Bigotry is not a legitimate religious belief. Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. When you give people the right to act or not act in a way to impose YOUR religious beliefs on others, they are no longer religious beliefs.

That's nonsense! The ceremony is a wedding. Period! The whole case is about WHO marries WHOM! Definitely the person!

 

Sheesh. A post that was designed to make people reflect and think. How dare you @Golem?

 

The ruling was based on a person who didn't exist being denied a service that was never requested to a person who was probably not even a web designer...

What it DOES is it enshrines bigotry against gays. Which was the purpose of all this in the first place. Are you surprised that the ruling doesn't SAY that?

And that is only ONE action in a series intended to bring us closer to fascism. So you can start looking at facts NOW... or you can wait until they come after YOU.

 

I sympathize with religious beliefs being stupid and often bigoted, but they are not refusing service to the person because they are a homosexual. They are refusing to do a specific service that violates their own religious beliefs. It's like if a doctor were pro-life, it would be inappropriate to compel them to perform an abortion. But it would also be inappropriate for them to refuse to treat the person for other conditions, and in the context of legal abortion it would be appropriate for them to refer the person to a provider who does.

And so in terms of religion, using the same reasoning, they could not refuse service to a person of a particular religion just because they are of that religion. But if asked to participate in a religion-promoting/degrading act that is against their own religious beliefs, then they are not required to do so.

 

Regardless of your smarmy add ins about "person that doesnt exist" in addition to the bizarre rant about fascism ......The undeniable reality is that this is all based on a ceremony, NOT the person placing the order (that you are assuming is a homosexual).

How can you POSSIBLY not understand this?

 

Punish them how? They had to get someone else to decorate a cake for them? Sounds brutal, how did they ever survive?

 

Its not a legitimate religious belief.

 

Oh?

So the whole Christians think marriage is a sacrament where marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and god is not truly their belief? They just made it up in the last few years?

Are you sure about that? I am personally not religious, but it seems to me that this is their sincerely held belief.