Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 I documented where you made that claim. Instead of recognizing your mistake in original claim .... ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2018, 05:25 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,168
Thanks: 808
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,057 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I documented where you made that claim. Instead of recognizing your mistake in original claim ....
In point of fact, you have NOT documented where I claimed "there are some documentable standards", as you claimed that I claimed. There's no mistake to 'recognize', only you trying to find anything you can to grasp onto to explain your argumentativeness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
By this level of simply holding an opinion, interracial marriage is not "faring well" because some people object on "morality and religion" to interracial marriage and interracial children.
The mere existence of a prejudice is not grounds for legislation.
Meh, so?
I'm not arguing that as a 'grounds for the legislation'. I'm merely answering your questions as to religious reasons for things. While I don't agree with religious people that think gay adoptions should be banned, I certainly understand their religious reasons underpinning their concerns about it. But it's become clear over the numerous conversations with you that you're never going to understand it and that you aren't really genuinely and authentically interested in understanding it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Yet you are balking at the recognition of it being a prejudice.
Why is that?
Because you've never been able to prove prejudice is the real reason for it in all these cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Where does the bible teach that gay couples shouldn't adopt?
For the 3rd time now, you're asking the wrong person. As I've already pointed out, you'll have to ask someone who actually holds to that view. I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
So you can't point to anything at all that this legislation actually accomplishes, but you tout it anyways...
I haven't 'touted' anything. However, as we saw from cases of the bakeries that were put out of business, there clearly is a real danger of people on the left using legislation to shut down groups/businesses when religious beliefs don't coincide with gay-pride ideology, so I can see that in the case of adoptions it would potentially HURT kids to have adoption agencies shut down over it. So what it accomplishes is self-evident, IMO: it guarantees religious groups the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs in how they run adoption programs. Less adoption agencies being shut down = more potential adoptions. And so it's a good thing in my book to not shut down adoption agencies.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2018, 08:07 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,222 Times in 9,225 Posts
Post Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Can you show me the bible passage which states it's a violation of the religion to allow a gay person to adopt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
I can't show you any bible passage. Not my thing.
But that's not the issue. You know that.
That's exactly the issue.
As I stated, people are using their religion as an excuse to enact their prejudices when their religion does not justify their desired action.

You claim this is about "freedom of religion"?
Then you need to show how their desired action is actually a part of their religion...
Cause the same standard is not applied when a Jewish couple wants to adopt a baby whom they will raise as Jewish and thus the kid will believe Jesus is not god. Obviously violating the first commandment. Raising the child to actually perpetuate sin.
At least that scenario has more of solid argument for discrimination...
(It's still flimsy for other reasons, but it's more solid than not wanting to allow gays to adopt from an agency.)
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2018, 08:24 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,222 Times in 9,225 Posts
Post Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Meh, so?
I'm not arguing that as a 'grounds for the legislation'. I'm merely answering your questions as to religious reasons for things.
Actually, no you are not.
You are taking an example of PREJUDICE and blindly (with no attempted justification) proclaiming it is "religious".

Again you chase your tail.
I challenge you to show how it qualifies as religious.
You say I need to take it up with the religious agencies.
Then later, you repeat your claim that it's "religious reasons".
If YOU are going to keep claiming their reasons are actually religious, then YOU need to defend that position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
While I don't agree with religious people that think gay adoptions should be banned, I certainly understand their religious reasons underpinning their concerns about it.
Then explain it.
Don't go the coward's route of saying I should take it up with them.
You claim to understand it? Then you explain it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Because you've never been able to prove prejudice is the real reason for it in all these cases.
I would be happy to examine any cases you believe are not grounded in prejudice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
For the 3rd time now, you're asking the wrong person. As I've already pointed out, you'll have to ask someone who actually holds to that view. I don't.
So you claim to understand that position and it's religious justification, but then when challenged you cower from explaining it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I haven't 'touted' anything. However, as we saw from cases of the bakeries that were put out of business, there clearly is a real danger of people on the left using legislation to shut down groups/businesses when religious beliefs don't coincide with gay-pride ideology, so I can see that in the case of adoptions it would potentially HURT kids to have adoption agencies shut down over it. So what it accomplishes is self-evident, IMO: it guarantees religious groups the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs in how they run adoption programs.
There is no such law in Oklahoma which prevents discrimination against sexual orientation. So claiming it is "clearly a real danger" is nonsensical.

Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, why do these efforts always focus exclusively on LGBT?
There are laws which prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc, etc, etc. While LGBT is not added to that list in Oklahoma, the legislative effort does nothing to protect religious discrimination based on those other factors.

The answer is obvious.
Because prejudice against gays is still attempted to be enjoined while the others are relegated to the shadows. Religious protection for prejudice against gays? Okay.
Religious protection for prejudice against race, religion, gender, etc? Ignored.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 02:22 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,168
Thanks: 808
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,057 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Actually, no you are not.
You are taking an example of PREJUDICE and blindly (with no attempted justification) proclaiming it is "religious".
First you claim I'm arguing 'grounds for legislation'. Now you've swtiched and are arguing about prejudice. Frankly it's comical at this point how you're so all over the radar.
You haven't proven it IS prejudice to begin with, Foundit. You have to do that first if you want people to argue with you about YOUR claims ... when you start with a premise, you have to prove it, to begin with. Do that first, then you'll have a start. You haven't even got THAT much yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Then explain it.
Don't go the coward's route of saying I should take it up with them.
You claim to understand it? Then you explain it.
Then from here on out, you defend all the left-leaning stuff you don't agree with but at least understand. Defend those who want to ban most all guns, for instance. See how STUPID your approach is?
You're not the arbiter of what anyone should defend here and CERTAINLY not what's cowardly or not (of all things)
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Last edited by Joe Shoe; 05-16-2018 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 05:36 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,222 Times in 9,225 Posts
Post Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
First you claim I'm arguing 'grounds for legislation'.
You are.
Quoting you from post #2: "As many of us predicted awhile back, religious liberty is winning out. Slowly but surely."
You both demonstrate you approve of the legislation and you claim it's religious liberty.

So stop pretending you're not doing exactly what you're doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Now you've swtiched and are arguing about prejudice.
No. It's not a switch.
Can you explain why you claim it's a "switch"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You haven't proven it IS prejudice to begin with, Foundit.
I didn't realize I needed to quote you the dictionary.
prejudice: a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Then from here on out, you defend all the left-leaning stuff you don't agree with but at least understand.

YOU CLAIMED IT WAS RELIGIOUS.
I'm simply asking you to defend your claim that it is religious.

You cannot repeatedly claim that it's religious and then refuse to explain why you believe it is religious. That is nonsense.

Your counter-analogy is b.s.
To use an analogy, I could proclaim "Islam views women as inferior to men".
Ergo, I am saying it's religious. And I could explain why (with Islamic references) this is based in Islam.
That does not mean I have to "defend" that view-point. And I am not asking you to "defend" people who refuse to allow gays to adopt.
I am saying you claimed it was based in religion, ergo you need to defend that claim.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 06:30 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,284
Thanks: 8,749
Thanked 7,190 Times in 4,345 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
That's exactly the issue.
As I stated, people are using their religion as an excuse to enact their prejudices when their religion does not justify their desired action.

You claim this is about "freedom of religion"?
Then you need to show how their desired action is actually a part of their religion...
Cause the same standard is not applied when a Jewish couple wants to adopt a baby whom they will raise as Jewish and thus the kid will believe Jesus is not god. Obviously violating the first commandment. Raising the child to actually perpetuate sin.
At least that scenario has more of solid argument for discrimination...
(It's still flimsy for other reasons, but it's more solid than not wanting to allow gays to adopt from an agency.)
I need to show you nothing. I am not a Christian, or a Buddhist. I don't make judgments on what others believe. Doesn't change my opinion. I'm also fairly sure that people have religious beliefs not in the Bible.

But since you brought it up, where does it say in the Bible that anybody has the right to demand someone decorate them a cake? Or recognize anybodies marriage?
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:59 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,168
Thanks: 808
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,057 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You are.
Quoting you from post #2: "As many of us predicted awhile back, religious liberty is winning out. Slowly but surely."
You both demonstrate you approve of the legislation and you claim it's religious liberty. So stop pretending you're not doing exactly what you're doing.
Where in that are grounds for legislation argued? You're REALLY grasping at straws at this point.
Religious people can do something in Oklahoma that they could not do prior to the legislation. Ergo, there's more religious liberty. So, this is not arguing "grounds"; rather it's literally pointing out a FACT to say "religious liberty is winning out."

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I didn't realize I needed to quote you the dictionary.
prejudice: a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
You just shot yourself in the foot because your definition begs the question as regards to this situation, when it says "without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"--as you haven't proven that's the case at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I am saying you claimed it was based in religion, ergo you need to defend that claim.
Dude, get real--it's not in anyone's best interest for people to have to defend patently OBVIOUS THINGS, as your demanding people do here. Do you seriously think that opposing gay sex or relationships is not a genuine religious belief???? That all religious people who hold to that view are just lying? (Which is the logical conclusion if it needed to be defended that it's religious, as you claim.) And more important, do you actually think anyone believes you when you allude it needs "defending" to point out the obvious? Geez.
Get in reality for awhile, man.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:19 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,222 Times in 9,225 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Where in that are grounds for legislation argued? You're REALLY grasping at straws at this point.
Quit with the lame goal-post move attempts. It's too obvious.
I didn't give that quote as an example of "grounds for legislation".
I gave it as yet another example of you claiming that the interest to restrict gays from adopting was about religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Religious people can do something in Oklahoma that they could not do prior to the legislation.
Your claim is false.
As I have explained multiple times, this legislation was meaningless.
There was no legislation in Oklahoma which required any adoption agency to provide services to gays.

You even previously claimed this was "precautionary", but now you claim it actually did something????
Can you figure out what your position is and stick to it???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Religious people can do something in Oklahoma that they could not do prior to the legislation. Ergo, there's more religious liberty.
This is specious reasoning.
Ignoring for the moment that your claim that they can do something they could not do prior is absolute b.s., just because a person can do something they could not previously do does not mean anything regarding whether or not it is "religious liberty".

Let's say a highway has 55 MPH speed limit.
A law is passed that says Christians can now go 65 MPH.
Just because Christians can now do something they could not previously do does NOT make it "religious liberty". The act itself had nothing to do with religion in the first place.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Religious people can do something in Oklahoma that they could not do prior to the legislation.You just shot yourself in the foot because your definition begs the question as regards to this situation, when it says "without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"--as you haven't proven that's the case at all.
Yes. I have.
When I showed that absolutely no documented research (i.e. KNOWLEDGE) shows children of gays are in any way harmed or hindered by having gay parents.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Dude, get real--it's not in anyone's best interest for people to have to defend patently OBVIOUS THINGS, as your demanding people do here.
No.
Not "people".
YOU Joe. You, as an individual have made this claim and I am asking you to back it up.

And worse, you pull this lame crap where you claim it's "OBVIOUS", yet you cannot PROVE your claim.
You trying to proclaim it's obvious is simply a bad attempt to beg the question.

Basically, the only specious logic you have demonstrated is that if people CLAIM it's religious, that's good enough.
Like I pointed out earlier, the same routine was done for prejudice against blacks, women, Jews, etc, etc, etc...
Just saying something is religious is meaninglessly easy and trite.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Do you seriously think that opposing gay sex or relationships is not a genuine religious belief????
Don't move the goal-posts.
Being Jewish denies Jesus's existence and thus violates the Christian first commandment.
But recognizing that fact means nothing about a person claiming that it's their "religion" to deny adoption service to Jews.

The reality is all people are sinners. Ergo, it's dumb to blindly state "that person committed a sin!" and then discriminate against them based on that.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:20 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,222 Times in 9,225 Posts
Post Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
I need to show you nothing. I am not a Christian, or a Buddhist. I don't make judgments on what others believe. Doesn't change my opinion. I'm also fairly sure that people have religious beliefs not in the Bible.
To you, what's the difference between a religious belief and a non-religious belief?
Is it just an arbitrary opinion of the person making the claim?

When a KKK member claims his Christianity specifies prejudice against blacks, is he right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
But since you brought it up, where does it say in the Bible that anybody has the right to demand someone decorate them a cake? Or recognize anybodies marriage?
You're confused. Nobody said that was in the bible.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2018, 07:26 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,284
Thanks: 8,749
Thanked 7,190 Times in 4,345 Posts
Default Re: Oklahoma's governor signs bill described by opponents as discriminatory

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
To you, what's the difference between a religious belief and a non-religious belief?
Is it just an arbitrary opinion of the person making the claim?

When a KKK member claims his Christianity specifies prejudice against blacks, is he right?



You're confused. Nobody said that was in the bible.
I don't do diversions.

You brought up things in the Bible as justification for your position, not I.

You're attempting to make some ridiculous claim that if it isn't in the Bible it's not a religious belief. Surely you know better. Or maybe not.

There are thousands of religions. Possibly a dozen are backed by written word. One of those is the bible. I guess the other thousands don't have religious beliefs.

My question stands.

Last edited by jimbo; 05-17-2018 at 07:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
bill, described, discriminatory, governor, oklahoma, opponents, signs

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0