IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Thanks.
The "coersion to participate in gay weddings" is no more and no less offensive to me than "coersion to participate" in any religious ritual. From my POV, they're are the same animal.

Edit:
Aside: The air of superiority in your quote is of the same stripe as the air of superiority expressed by Xians when they claim they'll go to heaven while us sinners will go to hell. The embrace of "gay rights" is evolving into a religion of its own. Believers are superior, opponents and/or agnostics and/or people who don't care one way or the other are luddites soon to die off - which is what needs be done.
Collapse Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 08:36:56 AM EST
Thanks.
The "coersion to participate in gay weddings" is no more and no less offensive to me than "coersion to participate" in any religious ritual. From my POV, there are the same animal.
Collapse Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 08:40:38 AM EST
Thanks.
The "coersion to participate in gay weddings" is no more and no less offensive to me than "coersion to participate" in any religious ritual. From my POV, there are the same animal.

Edit:
Aside: The air of superiority in your quote is of the same stripe as the air of superiority expressed by Xians when they claim they'll go to heaven while us sinners will go to hell. The embrace of "gay rights" is evolving into a religion of its own. Believers are superior, opponents and/or agnostics and/or people who don't care one way or the other are luddites soon to die off - which is what needs be done.
New Here's another gobbet of raw meat
...for your necklace:
Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman on Monday said he is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from joining the National Football League.

Burkman in a statement said he has garnered political support for the bill, though his statement didn’t mention any specific lawmakers who are behind it.

”We are losing our decency as a nation,” Burkman said in a statement. "Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?”
...
“If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it,” Burkman said.
http://thehill.com/b...ban-gays-from-nfl

First they came for the florists and I said nothing, for I have allergies. Then they came for the bakers and confectioners and I said nothing, for I am gluten-intolerant. Then they came for the offensive line, and I was offended.

cordially,

New Er, what?
Not on the same slope, not in the same mountain range, not even the same continent.
New lrpd that last sentence
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
     No one here I know of agrees with me on this. - (mmoffitt) - (176)
         Public accommodations laws. - (Another Scott) - (23)
             Are we really that weak? - (mmoffitt) - (22)
                 won't sell to blacks natives and rceaga - (boxley) - (14)
                     And don't forget suspected commies! -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Actually, I'd be okay with that. - (mmoffitt)
                     Nope. Thanks for herring. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                         either you are a public establishment or a key club - (boxley) - (10)
                             Dupe - ignore. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                             I don't think flowers and cakes for weddings rise that high. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                 So it's a different in magnitude, not kind? -NT - (malraux) - (7)
                                     I don't think so. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                         If they stick to the... - (folkert) - (4)
                                             You mean ... - (drook) - (1)
                                                 Yes... - (folkert)
                                             The baker may have. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 These people are ignorant fools. - (folkert)
                                         Hmm, nope. - (malraux)
                 What's wrong with treating people equally? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                     I guess the difference for me was the purpose. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                         yeah, like shoving that handicapped thing in your face - (boxley) - (3)
                             How many handicapped persons got married at the Grammy's? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 how many handicapped at the grammies? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                     There are some mentally challenged! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                         Homosexuality *is* normal, you doofus. - (pwhysall)
         Replace the word "gay" with "black" and see how it flies - (pwhysall) - (5)
             Nice try. Assumes facts not in evidence. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                 Incorrect. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     In public institutions, no. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         They're not private if they're public. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             What about if the door sign is posted... - (folkert)
         Of course, the Arizona business community has . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Here's the probolem (goining meta) - (drook) - (8)
             Unpossible!!11 -NT - (Another Scott)
             Heh. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                 Is it ok for a waiter in a restaurant to refuse a request? - (crazy) - (5)
                     That's not the case here. Here's a better analogy. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                         and your answer is? -NT - (crazy) - (3)
                             I'm not a fan of Compulsory Participation in Rituals. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 It is not a ritual. - (folkert)
                                 Who invited participation? - (crazy)
         Judge's ruling. - (Another Scott) - (21)
             Their argument was weak. But so was the judge's. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                 No. It compels them to treat them like any other customer. - (Another Scott) - (19)
                     That's a little disingenous. - (mmoffitt) - (18)
                         Please enumerate all the services that represent endorsement - (drook) - (9)
                             There's a reason why I didn't take the bait. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                 Why? - (drook) - (7)
                                     10%? Update your stats. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                         Another half-step back - (drook) - (1)
                                             Bzzzzt. Wrong. - (mmoffitt)
                                         Try again. - (malraux) - (3)
                                             Good catch. Well said. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             They did, however, - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 Already covered that. - (malraux)
                         Having a business isn't a right. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                             But Free Speech is. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                 Lots of "speech" is restricted for businesses. - (Another Scott)
                                 why would you have a problem with that? - (boxley) - (3)
                                     Is it the Buddhists that had it the same way? I forget. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         no, it was the nazi's that flipped it -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Ah. Thanks! -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                 "No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP - (folkert)
         Gotta give him credit - (rcareaga) - (20)
             Re: Gotta give him credit - (pwhysall) - (19)
                 You must be new here? -NT - (scoenye) - (2)
                     rofl! -NT - (Another Scott)
                     as AS puts it... - (folkert)
                 Actually, he does have a rational viewpoint - (crazy) - (15)
                     So... that is what they call it... - (folkert) - (9)
                         Unnatural? - (crazy) - (8)
                             No... - (folkert) - (7)
                                 To close to reality, but not - (crazy) - (6)
                                     Well... - (folkert) - (5)
                                         ok, I can accept that - (crazy) - (4)
                                             So you're light in the loafers -NT - (drook) - (3)
                                                 I wish - (crazy) - (1)
                                                     Re: I wish - (pwhysall)
                                                 Re: So you're light in the loafers - (rcareaga)
                     The Slate piece is larger in Scale than this smaller topic. - (Ashton) - (4)
                         If I have such a bias, I am unaware of it. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                             Re: "a business oriented problem" - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                 Indeed. :0) - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Who (first) said..? "The people is an ass." - (Ashton)
         And this is why people FIGHT with you on the issue - (crazy) - (1)
             Yup. Also... - (Another Scott)
         I'm going to try a different tack - (pwhysall) - (16)
             I don't think it contributes, but I don't think it detracts. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                 again, let's do that 100% valid thought experiment - (pwhysall) - (14)
                     Don't get hung up on "normal". - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                         nonsense - (pwhysall) - (12)
                             Normal is the wrong word. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                                 Blue eyes are "atypical". Being over 2 meters tall is also. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     Sigh. The erosion of rights troubles me. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                         Businesses . are . different. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                             Weddings.Are.Not.People. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                 (One more thing) Read the judge's decision again. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                     42. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                 then maybe find a profession that does not serve the public? - (boxley) - (4)
                                     No, that is NOT okay. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                         what if 2 gay men went in? I would assume the same reaction - (boxley) - (2)
                                             It isn't. I never said it was. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 Oh... - (folkert)
         Plan C - (pwhysall) - (1)
             Unpossible!!11 - (Another Scott)
         Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently - (rcareaga) - (7)
             Re: Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently - (pwhysall) - (2)
                 I'm sorry Monsiur, we are booked -NT - (boxley)
                 I'm actually susceptible to the argument that - (rcareaga)
             Thanks. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 Here's another gobbet of raw meat - (rcareaga) - (2)
                     Er, what? - (mmoffitt)
                     lrpd that last sentence -NT - (boxley)
         how about a slightly different twist - (boxley) - (1)
             see 386792 - (folkert)
         Even Republicans backing out. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
             I think that's due more to the threat of a loss of business. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 Good. Let them lose the superbowl. -NT - (crazy)
         I've reviewed this whole damn thread again - (rcareaga) - (5)
             Deep in the closet - (crazy) - (4)
                 too easy - (rcareaga) - (3)
                     awww, dammit - (crazy) - (1)
                         Hey! I'm 'old' too, mofo - (Ashton)
                     It's not a phobia. - (mmoffitt)
         mmoffitt! Georgia agrees with you! - (rcareaga) - (47)
             Jeez, they're missing a whole new Enemy to persecute-- - (Ashton) - (1)
                 that taint news -NT - (boxley)
             No, they don't. I thought I'd made this clear. - (mmoffitt) - (42)
                 "I am opposed to wholesale discrimination." - (crazy) - (41)
                     I am not surprised. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (40)
                         Well, that's what it is. -NT - (pwhysall) - (39)
                             I may not agree with you. - (mmoffitt) - (38)
                                 You don't have to agree - - (pwhysall) - (37)
                                     The general form of that ... - (drook)
                                     Again with the misstatement of my position. - (mmoffitt) - (33)
                                         That may be your position - (malraux) - (4)
                                             Then he has an indefensible position. And THANK YOU! - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 El dupo. -NT - (malraux) - (1)
                                                 That's your problem in this thread - (malraux) - (1)
                                                     -999,999 for me for clarity then. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                         Conflation of SSM with Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies? - (pwhysall) - (26)
                                             Reductio ad absurdum. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                                 Whatever. - (pwhysall) - (24)
                                                     Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (23)
                                                         Re: Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. - (pwhysall) - (22)
                                                             Okay, so I assumed something not proven, but likely. - (mmoffitt) - (21)
                                                                 The second reply to you in this thread pointed that out - (drook) - (20)
                                                                     It's not the same thing. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                                                         Stanford study from 1995. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                             Read the follow-up studies over the past 20 years. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                                                                 Point me to a cite, please. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                                     That's not how that works. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                                         Eh? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                             thats the prove there is no gawd argument :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                         So... when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? - (folkert) - (9)
                                                                                             This is my last on this, and only because I like you & Scott - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                                                 What's the hypothesis, here? - (pwhysall) - (7)
                                                                                                     Re: what would attract you to this line of investigation? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                         exactly, - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                             Um. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                         So you want to check whether it still is a mental illness? -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                                                                     If we must keep this up, new thread please? -NT - (drook)
                                                                                                     Because if it an illness, it might be fixable or prevented - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                         New. Thread. Please. -NT - (drook)
                                                                         So, when did you choose to be Hetero-Sexual? -NT - (folkert)
                                                                         Either way, it doesn't matter. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                                             Concur. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                         I think I get your position - (boxley)
                                     Well, we could be the Flat Earth Society! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                         Flat? FLAT? Everyone knows it's hyperbolic saddle-shaped! -NT - (pwhysall)
             well, there goes the gay black men convention in Atlanta -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                 Then ... let them eat cake! - (Ashton)
         Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays - (Ashton)
         Story behind the AZ (and other states) bill - (Another Scott) - (2)
             So every judge is now a member of the clergy ... OK -NT - (drook)
             Thanks ~~what I'd imagined: textbook religio-anarchy. Again. -NT - (Ashton)
         You got a buddy - (crazy)

My name's Friday. I carry a badge.
1,082 ms