User Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: There's a precedent for this though. We have laws against discrimination in public services. It's tricky, and threading the needle is required here for sure. Well, there is a precedent for religious freedom as well. The point here isn't that we have a precedent for forcing people to do stuff. The point was that the LGBTQ mafia was trying to destroy this guy to get him to comply and not just destroy him, continually harass him. That the notion of so-called tolerance here is anything but when it comes to compelling others like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 11 minutes ago, Hodad said: What about heterosexual literature? Probably best to just avoid anything with human relationships. Orrrr, we could go the other way and allow the full spectrum of human relationships, because that's the world we live in. Totally. We need young kid beastiality literature because who is going to teach these kids how to have sex with a sheep or camel the right way? How to maintain that relationship. Probably need more literature on Polygamy, incest, you name it, the whole full spectrum. Not sure there will be much time for reading or writing, though, with all these sexual fetish courses these kids will need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, User said: Totally. We need young kid beastiality literature because who is going to teach these kids how to have sex with a sheep or camel the right way? How to maintain that relationship. Probably need more literature on Polygamy, incest, you name it, the whole full spectrum. Not sure there will be much time for reading or writing, though, with all these sexual fetish courses these kids will need. Nothing like some good old fashioned hyperbole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 Just now, impartialobserver said: Nothing like some good old fashioned hyperbole. It isn't too far off the mark, he wants us to teach kids how to give good blow jobs and how to have anal sex in K-12.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 3 minutes ago, User said: It isn't too far off the mark, he wants us to teach kids how to give good blow jobs and how to have anal sex in K-12.... so any and all human relationships are centered around blow jobs.. who knew? By this logic.. you are quite the expert on performing these acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: so any and all human relationships are centered around blow jobs.. who knew? By this logic.. you are quite the expert on performing these acts. Nice strawman and spin to attempted personal insult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, User said: Nice strawman and spin to attempted personal insult. I just followed the breadcrumbs that you laid down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I backed up my case with an example...boot camps... or The Tea Party is another... Sure sure... so lets just ignore the gays and trans right? Maybe they'll fade too. Ahhh but you like those groups. Yet another in the growing pile of examples of you suggesting we ignore the rights of people you don't like in the hopes they go away. My my aren't you selective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 5 hours ago, User said: At this point, I have to think you are just trying to be difficult to be difficult. Yes, we were talking about not pushing our values onto the students in regards to sex. It is aligned with political views there, but that is not what you said, as if I said no business getting in their business at all. I want teachers to focus on kids reading, science, the arts, math, history... you want to have them teaching kids how to have anal sex. You and I are worlds apart here and it is not even close how far out you are. The vast majority of kids access online pornography. If you don't want to allow schools to counterprogram and provide materials that model healthy and safe sexual relationships, then you are simply condemning kids to a dangerous ignorance. But that feels more comfortable for a lot of you. Feels like the "abstinence only" idiocy recycled. And yes, we may be worlds apart. I live on Earth in 2024. What reality are you posting from? Quote Except, that is exactly what you are doing here. You are demanding that "tolerance" means I must play along with your fantasies. You are trying to force that onto me. The nihilists delight: "Tolerance means tolerating the intolerant!" Nope. That's not what it means, and it never had. It means live and let live. It means giving tolerance of whatever personal weirdness you exhibit, and expecting the same in return. The entirety of western philosophical exploration of liberty is based on this simple principle. Non-harm liberties do not affect you, so don't try to curtail them and we'll all get along. Quote That is not what Pro-Life means, you are conflating desired outcomes with what it means. Regardless, the point here was simply that you offer no respect or tolerance that you demand from others. Nonsense. Pure nonsense. I am 100% tolerant of you not wanting an abortion. More power to you. But when you're abusive to others and seek to curtail their liberty we have a problem. I don't respect or tolerate that in the least. MYOB. Quote Yes, how males and females behave has been a social construct to some degree, influence by biology and psychology as well. But it is how males and females behave. This is the game folks like you are trying to play and have it both ways now, trying to argue gender and sex are different so a man can pretend to be a woman... but the point is that he isn't a woman, yet you also want him to be treated as such not just in partaking in the acknowledgement of the fantasy, no, but we much allow the man to use women's facilities and beat them up in physical competition too! No, this is a ruse on your part, and not a very well done one. Sex and gender are different. Always have been. That they've been recently-and incorrectly-conflated is a shame. If a biological male wants to live as a woman, what's the harm to you? What's the harm to anyone? Why the need force them to do otherwise, and to what end? Nobody is asking more of you than basic courtesy. Quote Are you demanding that I pretend that a toupee literally means they do in fact have hair? No, I do not nor would I go out of my way to denounce anyone, but you and others in the LGBTQ movement certainly are demanding that from the rest of us, that we must play along or we will be branded as intolerant! Hateful! How dare we! Let me know when you figure out this basic courtesy thing for yourself. Does it cost you anything to treat the follically challenged with courtesy and decency, to indulge their presented state? Same question for a trans person? Does it cost you anything? Nope. The truth is you juts think it's weird and "icky" and that the "otherness" gives you license to antagonize them. There are always some people who get off on picking on marginalized groups, when it takes a lot less time and energy to just be courteous to everyone. Quote Where did I take issue with pride in one's self? Yo, it's the pride flag. Pride in one's self, comfort with one's self, tolerance. That's all that's in it. No negative message for anyone. You may think that gay people are icky, but unless you are represented by one of those stripes of color, that flag says nothing to or about you. Again, that's a stark contrast to a flag that explicitly represents dominance. Quote Well, Autism is a disability. I am not being asked to pretend someone with Autism doesn't in fact have Autism. A. Autism is very often a different ability, but not a disability. Sometimes it's a goddamn superpower. B. Nobody asked you to pretend that someone with autism doesn't have autism. Nobody asked you to pretend that gay people are not gay or trans people are not trans. The only thing you were asked to do in either case is to tolerate their expression of personal pride in their diverse status. If you wouldn't rip down the autism poster, you shouldn't be ripping down the pride flag. Neither of them have any negative impact on you. Let them be proud. Treat them with courtesy. Easy peasy. Quote Just like the Pro-Life flag, there is zero ham in that message of loving both the mother and the unborn child. But you want to make it into something ugly for the sake of politics. This is not a serious argument. Completely disingenuous. The flag of the pro-life movement represents... the pro-life movement. We know what those values. We know the hostility and the oppression--even the violence that sometimes comes with it. It's alarming that you can't distinguish between matters of non-harm liberty (Pride) and matters explicitly focused on taking someone else's liberty (pro-life). Quote Yes. Clearly you missed out on the whole Masterpiece Cakeshop guy, who the LGBTQ mafia set out to destroy his life, trying to force him to make them a cake with a dildo among other things... that is just one pretty big example. Nope, folks on the left and in the LGBTQ movement couldn't tolerate or respect his beliefs, they had to force compliance and use the power of government to try to do it too. So, tell us, did you support using the force of government to make him use his artistic abilities to design a specially themed wedding cake for a gay wedding? Lets see how tolerant you are. That's just a straight up lie. The cake that was requested was a simple wedding cake, no different than any other cake he makes. The cake requested was not a special “cake celebrating same-sex marriage.” It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike. See ante, at 4 (majority opinion) (recounting that Phillips did not so much as discuss the cake’s design before he refused to make it). The proprietor refused them service because they were gay, not because they asked him to do anything he wouldn't do for another customer. Its wrong. In exactly the same way that refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple because the proprietor is an anti-miscegenist. It's no different than the gas stations in the south that would turn away blacks. If he operates a business of public accommodation he should not be allowed to discriminate against protected minorities. And the fact that you would use this example is further evidence that you don't understand the concept of tolerance at all. I'm fine tolerating someone with his bigoted beliefs. He's welcome to use any place of public accommodation. That's what tolerance is. But when he manifests those beliefs in illegal ways to hurt others there is no reason to respect or accept that. Tolerance doesn't mean "tolerating" intolerance. It doesn't mean condoning his cruel and abusive actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 42 minutes ago, User said: Totally. We need young kid beastiality literature because who is going to teach these kids how to have sex with a sheep or camel the right way? Country western music, I assume?🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Country western music, I assume?🤷♂️ Ok - Hodad is an assh*le for sure but even I have to admit that was funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 1 Report Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, User said: Well, there is a precedent for religious freedom as well. The point here isn't that we have a precedent for forcing people to do stuff. The point was that the LGBTQ mafia was trying to destroy this guy to get him to comply and not just destroy him, continually harass him. That the notion of so-called tolerance here is anything but when it comes to compelling others like this. LGBTQ Mafia is a made up thing. I'm not going to change my mind on this topic because you use this term, any more than if I called religious people Evangelical Count Choculas. The courts are the ones that thread the needle, and yes public attitudes are a factor. It would go better for religious folks in the future if they took a less combative stance and more legalistic one. Because the future woke mafia is going to be pretty powerful I'm guessing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: LGBTQ Mafia is a made up thing. I'm not going to change my mind on this topic because you use this term, any more than if I called religious people Evangelical Count Choculas. The courts are the ones that thread the needle, and yes public attitudes are a factor. It would go better for religious folks in the future if they took a less combative stance and more legalistic one. Because the future woke mafia is going to be pretty powerful I'm guessing. No, it is hyperbole to describe the behavior of the concerted efforts of those LGBTQ folks to destroy this man's life because he wouldn't bake them a special cake. That is how the mafia behaves. You pay them, or they come to destroy your business. This guy was minding his own business, literally harming no one, and going about his life making people cakes. He was not trying to push anything on anyone, just going to work and earning a living doing what he liked. The combative stance here was all on the LGBTQ crowd's side. And he won out to a large degree on the legal side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 5 hours ago, Hodad said: If you don't want to allow schools to counterprogram and provide materials that model healthy and safe sexual relationships... These are your strawman arguments. You can counterprogram kids without having to engage in teaching them how to do the things in porn in the classroom. Your interest is not stopping kids from seeing porn; your interest is not actually in any counterprogramming; it is simply trying to justify why you think schools should show kids how to do it all based on YOUR notion of what a healthy relationship is. My disagreement with your warped sexual perversions that you want to push onto kids in K-12 is just that. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: The nihilists delight: "Tolerance means tolerating the intolerant!" Nope. That's not what it means, and it never had. It means live and let live. It means giving tolerance of whatever personal weirdness you exhibit, and expecting the same in return. The entirety of western philosophical exploration of liberty is based on this simple principle. Non-harm liberties do not affect you, so don't try to curtail them and we'll all get along. No, you are conflating acceptance with tolerance, saying that I must agree and participate or I am intolerant. Tolerance is not going over to your neighbor's house and tearing down their Pride flag. It is not tolerance to then demand your neighbor have to be OK with your insisting the community fly the Pride flag, too. You are the one who refuses to tolerate others and others' disagreement here. Live and let live is you flying the Pride flag all you want to... not forcing me to accept your wanting to fly it in a classroom or turning the classroom into your political soapbox. You are the one trying to impose your ideology onto others while acting smugly as if you do so under the banner of tolerance. Tolerance, for you, is a big stick that you beat people with, and when they resist, you mock them for being intolerant. How dare you not take this beating you are intolerant! 6 hours ago, Hodad said: Nonsense. Pure nonsense. I am 100% tolerant of you not wanting an abortion. More power to you. But when you're abusive to others and seek to curtail their liberty we have a problem. I don't respect or tolerate that in the least. MYOB. Nothing nonsensical about it at all. You continually misconstrue what the terminology Pro-Life means. The point here was that you are talking about courtesy when you offer none here. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: Sex and gender are different. Always have been. That they've been recently-and incorrectly-conflated is a shame. If a biological male wants to live as a woman, what's the harm to you? What's the harm to anyone? Why the need force them to do otherwise, and to what end? Nobody is asking more of you than basic courtesy. And yet here you are demanding I partake in a mans thinking of himself as a woman... The harm to me is that you keep demanding I must partake in the mans fantasy. Where did I say anything about forcing them to do otherwise? No, you are not asking basic courtesy from me at all, you are demanding my acceptance and my participation. Courtesy is being polite, courtesy is seeing them as a human and holding the door open for them, saying hello, helping them up if they fall down. Courtesy is not rejecting truth and your own integrity to play along with something you do not agree with or believe to be true. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: Does it cost you anything? Nope. The truth is you juts think it's weird and "icky" and that the "otherness" gives you license to antagonize them. There are always some people who get off on picking on marginalized groups, when it takes a lot less time and energy to just be courteous to everyone. Yes, it costs me my integrity. It costs not only my integrity, but it costs the concepts of reality, and truth, in the world. It doesn't matter what you think I think about it or how gross it is... the point here is that a person has every right to hold their own views and opinions on things, they do not have to agree with yours. That is not tolerance. What you demand is acceptance and participation when you offer none of that to any of the things you don't like or agree with either. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: That's all that's in it. No negative message for anyone. Yo, its a Pro-Life flag, no negative message for anyone... 6 hours ago, Hodad said: This is not a serious argument. Completely disingenuous. The flag of the pro-life movement represents... the pro-life movement. We know what those values. We know the hostility and the oppression--even the violence that sometimes comes with it. It's alarming that you can't distinguish between matters of non-harm liberty (Pride) and matters explicitly focused on taking someone else's liberty (pro-life). Again, you are conflating values with policy. Amazing how you demand I accept the Pride flag as harmless symbolism, but you continue to refuse to do that with the Pro-Life flag. I have already told you what it represents, you keep adding to it something that is not there. Having a Pro-Life flag in the classroom is not forcing anything on anyone. It is just a flag hanging there. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: That's just a straight up lie. The cake that was requested was a simple wedding cake, no different than any other cake he makes. No lie, I made no specific comment about the original cake, but the LGBTQ folks did harass him beyond that of wanting a dildo cake. I am speaking to all the harassment he faced. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: The proprietor refused them service because they were gay, not because they asked him to do anything he wouldn't do for another customer. Its wrong. In exactly the same way that refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple because the proprietor is an anti-miscegenist. It's no different than the gas stations in the south that would turn away blacks. If he operates a business of public accommodation he should not be allowed to discriminate against protected minorities. Now, this is not true. He sells baked goods to anyone, even if they are gay. He had no policy not to serve gay people at all. He refused to participate in their wedding by making them a custom cake to celebrate that wedding, which he found contrary to his beliefs. They could have come in and bought any generic cake and walked right out. 6 hours ago, Hodad said: And the fact that you would use this example is further evidence that you don't understand the concept of tolerance at all. I'm fine tolerating someone with his bigoted beliefs. He's welcome to use any place of public accommodation. That's what tolerance is. But when he manifests those beliefs in illegal ways to hurt others there is no reason to respect or accept that. Tolerance doesn't mean "tolerating" intolerance. It doesn't mean condoning his cruel and abusive actions. You are the one who doesn't understand tolerance. You use that word as a billy club to beat people with to agree with you and accept your positions and participate in your fantasies. To the larger point here, you were mocking the notion that LGBTQ folks were forcing compliance on people... and now you are here justifying it and completely ignoring how they treated this man and tried to destroy his life. That is not tolerance. Tolerance is understanding that people have deeply held religious beliefs and if they don't want to participate in your Satanic rituals by baking you a Satan Dildo cake, then you should be OK with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 hours ago, User said: No, it is hyperbole to describe the behavior of the concerted efforts of those LGBTQ folks to destroy this man's life because he wouldn't bake them a special cake. That is how the mafia behaves. You pay them, or they come to destroy your business. This guy was minding his own business, literally harming no one, and going about his life making people cakes. He was not trying to push anything on anyone, just going to work and earning a living doing what he liked. The combative stance here was all on the LGBTQ crowd's side. And he won out to a large degree on the legal side. You could make the same argument about someone who didn't want to serve someone in their establishment, due to their religion, ethnicity etc. The interest groups represent the rights of those groups, and their rights to be treated equally. It's not against anyone's religion to make a cake for a sinner, so the side story on the cake people is just maudlin icing in the issue from my POV. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: You could make the same argument about someone who didn't want to serve someone in their establishment, due to their religion, ethnicity etc. The interest groups represent the rights of those groups, and their rights to be treated equally. It's not against anyone's religion to make a cake for a sinner, so the side story on the cake people is just maudlin icing in the issue from my POV. It depends... are you not familiar with the Supreme Court ruling on this? Its findings were pretty specific here, and we do have many carve-outs for religious belief in our country. A Catholic Private School doesn't have to hire an openly gay person. But my main point this whole time was to merely show that there are in fact intolerant LGBTQ folks contrary to the disbelief of Hodad. We all have many rights and often times those rights conflict, and there is a hierarchy of rights. You have the right to free speech, I have private property rights... you do not have the right to free speech on my property. That is one example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 35 minutes ago, User said: 1. It depends... are you not familiar with the Supreme Court ruling on this? Its findings were pretty specific here, and we do have many carve-outs for religious belief in our country. A Catholic Private School doesn't have to hire an openly gay person. 2. But my main point this whole time was to merely show that there are in fact intolerant LGBTQ folks contrary to the disbelief of Hodad. 3. We all have many rights and often times those rights conflict, and there is a hierarchy of rights. You have the right to free speech, I have private property rights... you do not have the right to free speech on my property. That is one example. 1. Vaguely. I think they weighed in favour of the baker yes ? I support court decisions, or at least the role of the courts in deciding on big issues. I agree with most carve-outs having been raised devout and still with many devout friends and family. Your case applies to Canada also I think. 2. I agree that there are intolerant LGBTQ people - which is why both sides have to drive the conversation to a respectful and public mode. 3. Yes. No Mafia involved. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 To add @User the "accepted" morality of "you can't refuse service based on faith, race, etc." is itself a lot stranger and (was) more controversial than our public memory remembers. The idea that someone can't bar someone from entering their establishment for whatever reason they see fit is more complex than the alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: To add @User the "accepted" morality of "you can't refuse service based on faith, race, etc." is itself a lot stranger and (was) more controversial than our public memory remembers. The idea that someone can't bar someone from entering their establishment for whatever reason they see fit is more complex than the alternative. Except, that concept already exists today with the exceptions for protected classes. A business can indeed refuse you service for any reason under the sun. They don't like your hair, they don't like that you are not wearing shoes, they don't like that you smell funny, they don't like that you were not polite... But we were not talking at first about completely barring gay people from entering a business; that is not what happened at Masterpiece Cake Shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, User said: 1. Except, that concept already exists today with the exceptions for protected classes. A business can indeed refuse you service for any reason under the sun. They don't like your hair, they don't like that you are not wearing shoes, they don't like that you smell funny, they don't like that you were not polite... 2. But we were not talking at first about completely barring gay people from entering a business; that is not what happened at Masterpiece Cake Shop. 1. Ok 2. Granted My interest is always in the public sphere. I am still against the 'cake' decision although I accept it. I feel like there is no religion that prohibits the fabrication of gay cakes. Having been part of a liberal Catholic Church, I have seen what compromise in communities of faith can achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) 17 hours ago, Hodad said: The vast majority of kids access online pornography. If you don't want to allow schools to counterprogram and provide materials that model healthy and safe sexual relationships, then you are simply condemning kids to a dangerous ignorance. But that feels more comfortable for a lot of you. Feels like the "abstinence only" idiocy recycled. And yes, we may be worlds apart. I live on Earth in 2024. What reality are you posting from? If you want kids to learn about sex from men who dress up like women, listen to Hodad. If you want kids to have normal, healthy and traditional relationships with the opposite sex, then become living examples of normal, healthy and traditional marriages. Turn 2024 into positive change, not a woke nightmare. Edited May 2 by Deluge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Ok 2. Granted My interest is always in the public sphere. I am still against the 'cake' decision although I accept it. I feel like there is no religion that prohibits the fabrication of gay cakes. Having been part of a liberal Catholic Church, I have seen what compromise in communities of faith can achieve. Well, why are you focused on a prohibition on the fabrication of gay cakes so narrowly? I mean, you claim to have been part of a liberal Catholic Church, are you not familiar with the basic concepts around the general Christian view regarding Homosexuality? Not wanting to bake a cake is simply not wanting to participate in an activity you find wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 3 minutes ago, User said: 1. Well, why are you focused on a prohibition on the fabrication of gay cakes so narrowly? 2. I mean, you claim to have been part of a liberal Catholic Church, are you not familiar with the basic concepts around the general Christian view regarding Homosexuality? 3. Not wanting to bake a cake is simply not wanting to participate in an activity you find wrong. 1. I thought that was the example we were discussing ? 2. Sure but some on here have tried to misrepresent Christianity as a religion that mandates condemnation of sinners. That's a contortion to me, for sure. 3. Baking ? I would say a proper Christian baker would bake a Lesbian wedding cake with a big smile and hand it over lovingly. *shrugs*. Ask me about the carve-outs that I do support... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I thought that was the example we were discussing ? 2. Sure but some on here have tried to misrepresent Christianity as a religion that mandates condemnation of sinners. That's a contortion to me, for sure. 3. Baking ? I would say a proper Christian baker would bake a Lesbian wedding cake with a big smile and hand it over lovingly. *shrugs*. Ask me about the carve-outs that I do support... You were coming across as being deliberately obtuse, that there is no religious prohibition you know of for baking a gay cake... but that isn't the issue. Which is why I make the point and asked you what I did. I did not say anything about condemning sinners... I very specifically talked about not wanting to engage in the activities you find wrong. You can love your drunk Uncle and not want to go out to the bar drinking with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, User said: 1. You were coming across as being deliberately obtuse, 2. that there is no religious prohibition you know of for baking a gay cake... but that isn't the issue. Which is why I make the point and asked you what I did. 3. I did not say anything about condemning sinners... I very specifically talked about not wanting to engage in the activities you find wrong. You can love your drunk Uncle and not want to go out to the bar drinking with him. 1. Fair 2. I'm trying to use analogies against absolutes. 3. I've lost the thread of this conversation, sorry. I'm not sure about your own analogy: baking a cake for a lesbian isn't the same as getting drunk with your uncle... Anyway, I think we both understand the issue and where we stand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.