Goddess

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.

"One incident" "Isolated incident"

If it were just about women having some alone time to swim without men ogling them, I would tend to agree with women-only or men-only swim times. But I suspect that THAT is not what this is about.

Absolutely. Christianity almost immediately became a religion of believing and obeying endless requirements. It has virtually nothing to do with really transforming yourself or becoming a better person.

I have a friend who is a Gnostic Bishop with a Sanctuary in CA. I like gnosticism. It's closest to what I understand.

Jehovah Unmasked explains the Gnostic version of the creation account.

Have you read "Jehovah Unmasked" by Nathaniel J. Merritt? You likely have.

Reasoning on this pretty much made me give up on the idea of organized religion. Tree of life was guarded by an angel with a flaming sword? Before swords were invented....... The Bible story of A & E seems to be that we are nothing but pawns in a giant bet between Satan and God - God bets that humans will be loyal to him under pressure and Satan bets they will not. Having once been a JW (for most of my life) the blood transfusion issue is one that still peeves me. When the nations around Israel were sacrificing their children to Molech, God said that such a thing never entered into his heart and Israel was not to so the same. Yet JW's sacrifice their children to their God in the name of blood transfusions and don't see the similarity.

Parents make choices for their children all the time. If a parent chooses to raise jihadiis, then let them eat the consequences of that. It's not even comparable to say deliberately raising your kids to be terrorist killers and hauling them off to a battlefield is the same as forcing them in a hijab. Smarten up. Actually I brought this up before on this forum. Why were his parents allowed to raise jihaddis and drag them off to the battlefields? Because there isn't one of you here that would ever allow the government to interfere in what a Muslim parent chooses for their children. I also asked why the family who did this to him is allowed to continue living in Canada, and continue promoting jihadi/terrorist ideals. Again, there isn't one of you here that would allow any governmental interference in Muslim beliefs. I'm not the one supporting parents who do this to their children. You support them by not allowing it happen, but advocating a completely "hands off" approach to Muslim extremism.

Since we allow them to drift back and forth between barbarism and progressiveness, using both to their advantage. They want to kill without impugnity AND be protected from the consequences. I do not agree.