Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[Nice Squirrel]

Yep.

 

[Alias2]

Yep.

Then why don't the Christophobic bigots ever target a Muslim business?

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully, the new governor that the citizens voted in can prevent future bullying by the hateful Christophobic bigot bullies.http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/11/kim-davis-victory-new-gov-to-drop-clerk-names-from-marriage-licenses/

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yep.

Then why don't the Christophobic bigots ever target a Muslim business?

Because we want Sharia law to descend upon America.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then why don't the Christophobic bigots ever target a Muslim business?

Well, you kind of answer your own question, there. If the upset over Mrs. Davis is BECAUSE SHE'S CHRISTAIN, then a true Christophibic Bigot would not be concerned with muslims, would they? Unless they were ALSO Islamophobic. But that's two different conditions.
Your question is more like asking if a diabetic should be against tobacco laws based on their diabetes. It's a completely different issue.

And really, that's an odd question in a thread about someone pursuing their religion over the government office she's sworn to fulfill. It's not a business that she's operating.

And odd that you think asking someone elected to an office to perform the job she swore to uphold is bullying. How does that work? Are we not allowing her to quit if the burden of doing her fucking job is too onerous? Are we making sure that all her taxpayer salary dollars have 'in god we trust' crossed out? Did she not get the memo that her job included licenses to people who might not agree with her religion's stances on, for example, adultery, divorce, abortion, miscegenation, and so on?
Where does she draw the line?
Or more importantly, where does the state draw the line on how much leverage she has to decide what her job actually entails?

- - - Updated - - -

It's fascinating to watch the lefties mock and ibsult Christians and ignore the Muslims. Cowards.

...he said on the internet, using an alias.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yep.

Then why don't the Christophobic bigots ever target a Muslim business?

Well, if there are Muslim businesses denying services because the customers didn't comply with their faith, I for one would be just as much against those. For instance, if a shop owner told a female customer who came in without a niqab on to get out, I'd be just as vehemently opposed to his actions.

If, in a thread about that specific topic, someone came in and asked why we're only talking about the Muslims and not the Hindus, I'd say that it's because there's nothing about Hindus which is relevant to the situation under discussion because it's a Muslim doing the thing that we're talking about.

 

[SimpleDon]

You have to love trolls, they are so cute in their single minded dedication to showing us the errors of our ways by devastating our worldview in a few short posts and a link from world news daily.

I may never feel whole again.

 

[Rhea]

If a Muslim refused to bake a queer marriage cake would they be "religious bigot" too?

Of course. Was there a question about this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If a Muslim refused to bake a queer marriage cake would they be "religious bigot" too?

Of course. Was there a question about this?

It's the religious martyrdom complex.

"As a religious person can pick on you, but you can't pick on me because that's discrimination and persecution. And besides, my way is sacred, your way is against god."

See how it works?

 

[Ford]

Then why don't the Christophobic bigots ever target a Muslim business?

Because we'd have to get in line behind the Christians?

 

[crazyfingers]

It's fascinating to watch the lefties mock and ibsult Christians and ignore the Muslims. Cowards.

It's fascinating that someone who jumps in with so few posts complains in a thread about a Christian government worker who was denying constitutional rights to gays would complain that we ignoring the Muslims in this thread.

I think that if you actually took the time to look around this board you'd find that when some Muslims acts to violate the rights of others, or anyone acts to violate the rights of others, that person is equally condemned.

Why don't you read more on the board before saying more stupid shit?

 

[Alias2]

Well, you kind of answer your own question, there. If the upset over Mrs. Davis is BECAUSE SHE'S CHRISTAIN, then a true Christophibic Bigot would not be concerned with muslims, would they? Unless they were ALSO Islamophobic. But that's two different conditions.
Your question is more like asking if a diabetic should be against tobacco laws based on their diabetes. It's a completely different issue.

And really, that's an odd question in a thread about someone pursuing their religion over the government office she's sworn to fulfill. It's not a business that she's operating.

And odd that you think asking someone elected to an office to perform the job she swore to uphold is bullying. How does that work? Are we not allowing her to quit if the burden of doing her fucking job is too onerous? Are we making sure that all her taxpayer salary dollars have 'in god we trust' crossed out? Did she not get the memo that her job included licenses to people who might not agree with her religion's stances on, for example, adultery, divorce, abortion, miscegenation, and so on?
Where does she draw the line?
Or more importantly, where does the state draw the line on how much leverage she has to decide what her job actually entails?

- - - Updated - - -

It's fascinating to watch the lefties mock and ibsult Christians and ignore the Muslims. Cowards.

...he said on the internet, using an alias.

Yes, same as you are using an alias. The Christophobic bigots love to go on and on and on justifying their own bigotry.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, same as you are using an alias.

Yes, but i'm not using my internet anonymity to call other people cowards you brave, brave soldier for Christ.

The Christophobic bigots love to go on and on and on justifying their own bigotry.

Sure we do.
And brevity is the soul of openmindedness, i suppose?

 

[Alias2]

Yes, but i'm not using my internet anonymity to call other people cowards you brave, brave soldier for Christ.

The Christophobic bigots love to go on and on and on justifying their own bigotry.

Sure we do.
And brevity is the soul of openmindedness, i suppose?

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, but i'm not using my internet anonymity to call other people cowards you brave, brave soldier for Christ.
Sure we do.
And brevity is the soul of openmindedness, i suppose?

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

1) I don't actually give a shit about Islam since Muslims in America are overwhelmingly peaceful and a very small minority in my community. They keep to themselves and pay taxes like everyone else; no problems. For that matter I have no hostility towards MOST Christians either, in fact I harbor a special fondness towards certain flavors of the faith (Jehovas Witnesses and Quakers in particular) because I respect their principles and their having the balls to actually live by them. There are SPECIFIC sects of Christianity, however, that provide a safe haven for meddlesome, self-righteous agitators driven by little else but moral panic. I have no tolerance whatsoever for such people.

2) Telling an asshole to stop being an asshole is no more "bullying" than taking the keys from a drunk driver. Certain types of Christians call it "bullying" when they're prevented from slut-shaming teenage girls or disparaging homosexuals in junior high schools. If standing in judgement of other people's sex lives is a religious sacrament, you're welcome to do that in your church or in the privacy of your own home. If you choose to do so in the public sphere, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice, up to and including public alienation when everyone points out what an asshole you are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The left are cowards.

Well, at least you specify individuals you have an issue with, not just blind, shotgun bigotry.

They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

What does 'islam' have to do with trying to get Kim to do the job she asked to do and was elected to do?

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, but i'm not using my internet anonymity to call other people cowards you brave, brave soldier for Christ.
Sure we do.
And brevity is the soul of openmindedness, i suppose?

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

Please don't challenge other forum members to a duel. It adds nothing to the discussion, whether you could or could not kick someone's ass.


For most of recent US history, Christians have been the left. It was Christians that spearheaded the civil rights movement, something virulently opposed by the right. Civil rights workers walked into situations where they knew right wing political activists were going to beat them. There really is no room for the word "coward" when describing the left, then or today.

There is no cowardice in standing up to long lived religious authority and saying, you are violating the law of this nation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

Please don't challenge other forum members to a duel. It adds nothing to the discussion, whether you could or could not kick someone's ass.


For most of recent US history, Christians have been the left. It was Christians that spearheaded the civil rights movement, something virulently opposed by the right. Civil rights workers walked into situations where they knew right wing political activists were going to beat them. There really is no room for the word "coward" when describing the left, then or today.

There is no cowardice in standing up to long lived religious authority and saying, you are violating the law of this nation.

I never let myself forget that the Quakers and the Mennonites were opposed to slavery from the very earliest days of colonization. They were the "far left wing" of their time, and other Christians HATED them for it.

 

[Alias2]

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

1) I don't actually give a shit about Islam since Muslims in America are overwhelmingly peaceful and a very small minority in my community. They keep to themselves and pay taxes like everyone else; no problems. For that matter I have no hostility towards MOST Christians either, in fact I harbor a special fondness towards certain flavors of the faith (Jehovas Witnesses and Quakers in particular) because I respect their principles and their having the balls to actually live by them. There are SPECIFIC sects of Christianity, however, that provide a safe haven for meddlesome, self-righteous agitators driven by little else but moral panic. I have no tolerance whatsoever for such people.

2) Telling an asshole to stop being an asshole is no more "bullying" than taking the keys from a drunk driver. Certain types of Christians call it "bullying" when they're prevented from slut-shaming teenage girls or disparaging homosexuals in junior high schools. If standing in judgement of other people's sex lives is a religious sacrament, you're welcome to do that in your church or in the privacy of your own home. If you choose to do so in the public sphere, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice, up to and including public alienation when everyone points out what an asshole you are.

Typical Islamist appeasement and Christophobic hateful leftist propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

Please don't challenge other forum members to a duel. It adds nothing to the discussion, whether you could or could not kick someone's ass.


For most of recent US history, Christians have been the left. It was Christians that spearheaded the civil rights movement, something virulently opposed by the right. Civil rights workers walked into situations where they knew right wing political activists were going to beat them. There really is no room for the word "coward" when describing the left, then or today.

There is no cowardice in standing up to long lived religious authority and saying, you are violating the law of this nation.

I never let myself forget that the Quakers and the Mennonites were opposed to slavery from the very earliest days of colonization. They were the "far left wing" of their time, and other Christians HATED them for it.

The underground railroad was run by Christians.

 

[bilby]

The underground railroad was run by Christians.

I dunno. This guy looks like he'd be a Hindu or a Muslim to me. And he features on the Underground railroad's recruiting guide, which as far as I can tell makes no mention of driver candidates being required to be Christians.

 

[atrib]

Yes, but i'm not using my internet anonymity to call other people cowards you brave, brave soldier for Christ.
Sure we do.
And brevity is the soul of openmindedness, i suppose?

The left are cowards. They bully Christians and appease and ignore the hateful murderous backwards tribal cult called Islam. C'mon hypocrite, bring it.

The fundamentalist Christian tribe is just as hateful, murderous and backwards as the fundamentalist Muslim tribe. Even today, many Christians in America dream of a country governed by fundamentalist Christian doctrine. Most do not use bombs to accomplish their vision, but don't get me wrong, they are just as steadfast in their batshit fundamentalist beliefs as the Muslims, and work tirelessly to oppress those whose beliefs or sexual orientation do not conform strictly to their own.