Goddess

No, I'm not. But I support the gay community. That's funny, Betsy. I haven't started ONE topic for or against homosexuality - but you start one almost weekly. So I beg to differ on which of us is the one "drooling and foaming" at the mouth about homosexuality. Same for me.

Hahaahaa, you can tell them anything you want. But sooner or later they will find out the truth. There is no god, no one gives a crap if you get a tattoo, eat lobster or get laid before marriage. But I suspect you Christians already know that, since you get tattoos, eat lobster and get laid before marriage.

That's a good idea. Follow the example of the Conservative party......

I didn't start the topic. You did. You seem to be the one taking it personally. Why would it matter if I was trans or not? I have lots of gay friends and I have one friend whose daughter transgendered from female to male before he was out of high school. Like your video of the 14 year old girl, he was fortunate to have parents who supported him and a school that tolerated no bullying. That's really sad. All because you're so insecure in your masculinity that you can't just smile and say "No, thanks, I bat for the other team" should a trans person ever flirt with you.........

Transgender people have always been here. 100 years ago, they shut up about it, lived a life of shame and confusion and many likely committed suicide. To make people like you feel better. Is that what you want to go back to? Just so you don't accidently flirt with a trans person in a bar?

Ali first claimed refugee status in Canada in 1986, arriving from the United States. The lawsuit acknowledges he provided authorities with a fake name before admitting his real one a week later. I don't understand why we can't turn these people back at the border? What's wrong with saying, "Look, we don't know who you are or where you're from and you refuse to tell us, so we're not letting you in."? Then let him sue us on his own dime.

No, it was more the first part......feel free to not rebut to your heart's content.

I'm still allowed to rebut your statements.

While I understand and agree with the point you are trying to make - that there are other sects in Christian and Jewish societies which also restrict how women dress - I do not agree on the comparison between a full face AND body covering versus a bonnet or long dress. The burka is neither of those - not a bonnet. Not a longer skirt length. Many women of no faith will wear a hat. Many women of no faith will wear a skirt that is longer. I agree with you that the INTENT is similar. However, a woman in a bonnet or longer skirt can still eat or drink in public. They can speak and be heard. They can interact with society and society can interact with her. I've never had a Hutterite man slap my hand away from his wife or demand that I ignore her, as I have with Muslim men guarding their burka'ed women. I have always felt free to converse with a Hutterite woman. The intent of the burka takes this way, way too far - it doesn't just DIMINISH a woman's female personhood, it completely OBLITERATES the woman and her identity as a human being so that she can neither be seen nor heard and thus is easily forgotten. The burka takes the "spirit" of religious freedom and perverts it in a way that is much more damaging to women. And what damages women, damages society, as is evidenced in countries where the burka is mandatory.

Yeah, right....... Can you imagine the weeping and wailing from the SJW's if the Canadian government wanted to investigate why a Muslim family with little kids was spending so much time in Afghanistan? "Well, why aren't we investigating ALL families who want to take their kids out of country, this is unacceptable targeting of an innocent minority!!!!!!!" "It's their religious right to do whatever they want with their own kids and take them anywhere they want and teach them anything they want - how dare you question Muslim parents!! RACISTS!!!! ISLAMOPHOBES!!!!" etc........etc........

Like we all didn't know that this was where all that refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay people was heading..... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/26/refusing-to-sell-homes-to-gay-people-is-okay-gop-congressman-says-realtors-disagree/?utm_term=.924655a7ad39

What is is that you want them to say about homosexuality? What is it you want them to do about homosexuality? Jail them? Throw them off the roofs of buildings? Or you just want them to shut up? Why do you want homosexuals to shut up but want conservatives to speak about it?

You just love saying TRUMP.

I think the broader issues have already been addressed, but still need to be clarified and firmed up in some states or else what you said above would really be the case. Nothing in the above decision says you can now legally discriminate against the gay community by refusing them service.

I'm not sure this is the "win" you were hoping for, Betsy. The ruling was regarding the circumstances of this particular case. It doesn't endorse the broader "right to discriminate" that you are seeking. All this ruling said was that the baker didn't get a respectful hearing from the Commission. You will need to re-double your anti-LGBTQ efforts in order to legally discriminate against people you don't agree with.

Because in most of those countries, women are denied an education.

Did you even read the link? And I'm not your darling, either.

Read for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_and_discoveries_by_women You said this: Where would women be today if men were not around to have been able to build homes for them or give women all the modern appliances and conveniences that they have today? There would be no planes, trains or automobiles for them to drive or be driven in. Women wouldn't have homes if men didn't provide them? Men gave women ALL the modern appliances and conveniences, did they? There would be nothing for women to transport themselves in or on, if it weren't for men? Really? Really, Taxme??????? Try to follow along this time: You have said many times that you do not agree with women wearing hijabs and burkas. Yet you support the ATTITUDES of those who oppress women by espousing the EXACT same ideas about women - useless, can't fend for themselves, need men to survive. Does she know that the only value you place on women is as something to sleep with? And I'm not your "dear" either.

The general consensus is that women invented beer as they were the ones who usually did such things in those early societies. Women played a large part in all of the above inventions. I really don't care if you think women are useless pieces of non-contributing society members. I WILL remind you, though, Taxme - your attitude towards women is EXACTLY the same attitude many Muslims have towards women and the reason for hijabs and burkas, which you said you were against. Yet somehow you are not against the attitudes that lead to such oppression of women. And I'm not your "honey".

Yes, I'm aware of that - inventions are usually collaborative efforts. Taxme feels that women have contributed absolutely nothing to society and that if it weren't for men, women would be living in makeshift lean-to's in squalor, barely able to feed themselves. My post was to counter his post and to show that women also contribute greatly to society.

Women invented beer. And COBOL. And windshield wipers. And stem cell isolation. And wireless technology. And dishwashers, refrigerators and ice cream makers. You're welcome.

The "Rape Game" comes to America...... http://fox40.com/2018/05/30/men-accused-of-lewd-acts-at-sunsplash-go-free-as-prosecutors-gather-more-evidence/

Men have not had to fight for their rights like women have. I wonder if you would be as willing to accomodate a religion that wanted to set men's rights back several hundred years? It's probably hard for you to imagine, as men have always had their rights and have rarely had to fight for them like women have.

You keep saying "one incident"............like this has never happened before........like Belgium is an anomoly.

Exactly. I can understand and go along with women-only swim times, or men-only swim times or daddy & son/mommy & daughter swim times. But I don't think that's what this is about - I think it's about segregating the sexes in accordance with Sharia law.