Mary Cheney Takes on Drag Queens

So all you have is posting?

Seems I have won this debate.

 

Really? Sure it does.

 

You need to read your own article. Phillips only faces jail time for violating a court order. Why should he be exempt?

 

So I guess everyone is happy now. He doesn't bake wedding cakes for anyone anymore.

But it doesn't apply to Christians, you can discriminate against them.

 

I already said I didn't care to hear the sob stories.

What people are discriminated against because they are Christians?

 

The court ordered him to disavow his Christian faith or go to jail.

Next they will send Christians to the lions.

- - - Updated - - -

The people in the articles in the links if you click on them.

 

No it didn't. It ordered him to bake cakes, he is a baker. Nothing in the case slightly involved his Christianity. Only a very weak defense on his part. Clearly his case was weak.

This case had nothing to do with Christianity.

I have read the story many times. There are no Christians being discriminated against. There was a baker that lost a discrimination lawsuit. He claimed his discrimination was justified due to his Christianity, but apparently it isn't. Of course it isn't. People have tried to hidebehind Christianity in many cases of discrimination, it fails. It's a crummy defense.

The business is baked goods, not philosophy. So I can see why he lost. Had he discriminated against a black person or a woman because they were black or female and tried to blame it on his religion he would have lost.

This seems to be more of an effort to remain relevant. Backward Christian beliefs are falling away as our culture evolves. If Christians wish to remain relevant they must evolve as they grudgingly do in most cases. The other cases they fall into obscurity.

This isn't about Christianity, it's existential angst.

 

do I, seems you are projecting.

I have no wish to take away a person individual right to freedom of religion .. however your religion does not mean you have special privileges over and above all other people. You engage in a for profit business then you cannot refuse to serve a select group of people something you serve to all others.

 

Same old song and dance.

The only thing that has changed is the definition of marriage.

 

You're not fooling anyone with this. You can deny all you like that you didn't mean for people to infer from your statement that all gay people are perverts, and by extension, myself as well. But that denial rings extremely hollow in light of the many other anti-gay statements you have made and continue to make. Moreover, it reveals a certain dishonesty - carefully wording a statement that one not only knows is likely to be found offensive, but actually doing so with the hope that it will be taken as such, so that one can thereafter proclaim innocence and victim status for being 'wronged'.

In other words, I'm calling BS on this, and anyone with a functioning nose can smell it a mile away.

I happen to think that 'perversion' is subjective. What you may find perverted, others do not. But this isn't about personal tastes, but your attempt to promote your viewpoint of what is perverted in order to attack your opponent instead of address their points.

Militant, as in someone is holding a gun to your head? More hyperbolic BS.

Civil unions are not a compromise - they're about maintaining the illusion that heterosexually oriented people are superior to those of same-sex orientation, while pretending to offer those of same-sex orientation a form of 'legal equality' that is nothing of the sort.

The CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION, is a 'civil union'. Consider:

If the object of a 'civil union' is to provide same-sex couples with an equal legal status for their relationships, then why is different terminology even necessary? The answer is, of course, that it isn't necessary. You can't make two groups legal equals by discriminating against one group, forcing them to use a different word. It's utter nonsense. So what is the purpose then? It's exactly what I said above. It's about pretending to offer a compromise, wherein the only thing being compromised is the target's legal equality.

That's nothing more than your own ridiculous opinion.

It's nothing of the sort. The First Amendment is very specifically a prohibition against Congress making an establishment of religion; in other words, against the creation of a state-controlled religion, whether in actual name or de facto through its actions, that controls you. It also protects the "free exercise" of religion from the interference of government - in other words, your right to believe and worship according to your own conscience and convictions.

The "free exercise" of religion, does NOT, however, mean that you get to do whatever you please with no regard for the harm to others and their rights. Your right to the free exercise of your religious beliefs is limited in the same way as any other right - it ends where your practice of such collides with the rights of others to enjoy similar freedoms.

These refusals of service by cake/florist/photographer aren't really about the freedom to believe and worship in a particular way - they're about discriminating against people who don't share your beliefs. Through the legislative and judicial processes of this country, it has become clear that government serves a vital interest of the People (which means all of us - gay people included) by discouraging undue discrimination, as part of its mandate to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. The people who seek to thwart that are not gay people just trying to do business - it's the people who think that pairing the operation of a business with their religious beliefs somehow entitles them to a special right to discriminate, disassociate, and marginalize whole groups of people they don't like, having nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction at hand, or their ability to maintain that business operation.

Whether it's baking a cake, arranging flowers, or taking photographs - none of these are a religious exercise, nor do they compel participation in any religious rite.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that has changed is the legal definition of marriage. You don't own the word, nor does your religion.

 

Then you should be able to quote us the specific text of the ruling wherein the Court ordered such. The reality is that you can't, because this isn't what actually happened. It's just a dishonest distortion on your part.

Hyperbole combined with fortune telling. No one should take you seriously hereafter. You might just as well say that gay people will turn into cannibals once the Supreme Court rules in their favor, pillaging hospitals in search of human waste - like a certain Christian pastor recently did.

Of course, I don't think that this is how most Christians behave. My point is, tantrums and delusion should not be indulged.

 

Yep, words and their definitions change. That's life.

 

Really, definition of marriage according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition is as the following;



and as far as I am aware the laws surrounding who you can and cannot serve haven't changed, strange that only now do we see so called Christians jumping up and down about them.

so the song and dance has changed only as far as the anti-SSM so called Christians are concerned.

 

Regardless, words change. I can think of quite a few that have in just my lifetime.

 

Correct and this is why the anti-SSM argument of marriage only being between a man and woman fails. The fact that anti-SSM people do not want the definition of marriage to change has no relevance or bearing on the matter and is in fact an appeal to tradition

 

exactly, the arguments against it are always fallacious. Hence the federal courts have found on the side of logic.

 

Yep, it's pretty sad that the anti-SSM folks now resort to old definitions and tax benefits to try and rally against SSM. They've lost on every other reason to be against SSM and this is all they have.

 

I have to agree with her. It's hypocritical to claim it's wrong to wear mock one group of people by acting out stereotypes, but completely justifiable as "entertainment" to mock another group by acting out stereotypes. I know a few men who who perform at drag clubs for money, but are not gay, bi, or transgender. It's more common than people think. It comes the the same mentality as the "gay for pay" porn stars, who are actually straight, but act in gay porn because it pays better. No one condemns them for being offensive, despite them using other people's lifestyles as entertainment for money. But if race enters the picture, instead of gender or sexual orientation it becomes immoral.

Many people also claim that dragqueens are acting out "who they really are" and not trying to mock women, but, if there was a white man who felt that he should have been born black and wore blackface for that same reason, liberals would disregard it, and label him as a racist.

 

My big question is...have you ever even see a drag performance.

My suspicion is no. Believe me they have nothing to do with making fun of women.

 

Yes. Those stupid tv shows. I think women consider it to be mocking women whether they intend it that way or not.

 

To be honest a large portion of the gay community doesn't like the drag queens of the community.

Personally I think it's pretty hilarious. I've known a few drag queens over the years. They're doing it to be performers. It's mostly all an act for stage. But then some of them really are catty jerks.

 

Yeah, I don't mind it as performance art. Although for some their art is their life, so they are that way all the time.

I don't agree with the comparison to blackface. Racist jokes are free speech. I wouldn't recommend doing a Michael Richards routine.

Christians are made fun of too. There should be no protected class. But at the same time, jokes that are in poor taste can no less be offensive.

There is no right to not be offended.

 

Hey I completely agree. No one has the right to not be offended.

I have to admit that I know some pretty funny gay jokes. Why? Because if you ever take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh at yourself...well then what's the point? Life isn't worth living without humor.

 

But then again you also have many many comedians who make fun of race and their own races and make a killing.

Katt Williams, Eddy Murphy, Richard Pryor, Carlos Mencia. Just to name a few.

 

Very true. I'm Mexican, Catholic, if you can't laugh at yourself, you become ISIS.