Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Bill reaction nonsense

February 24, 2014

Advertisement

To the editor:

The hysteria around the bill concerning rights not to provide services for homosexuals is nonsense. This has even invaded our sports page. A few thoughts and questions to consider:

  1. Civil rights are not the same as homosexual rights. A person is born a particular color/race.

  2. It is obvious from birth what the color/race a person is.

  3. The most one can claim is that some are born with an attraction (later manifested) to the same sex.

  4. Homosexuality is discerned by the actions of people.   

  5. If sexual identification is determined by DNA and so moral, then pedophiles, rapists and bestiality can claim they are moral.

  6. Is a hot-tempered person excused for actions if born with that disposition?  

  7. Is it right to argue that the disposition a person has when born makes the future actions OK?

  8. Should a homosexual in the business be required to print signs for the “protests” of Fred Phelps? No? Then why should those opposed to same-sex marriage be forced to service those weddings?

  9. Is it truly hate speech or bigotry to disagree with the actions of some and not want to be involved in their activity?

  10. Does our Creator have rights? Surely those are important to take into consideration.  

Comments

John Graham 8 months, 1 week ago

You better be religious because your 'letter to the editor' is going to get crucified by the liberal posters on this site.

2

James Howlette 8 months, 1 week ago

Interesting choice. Crucifixions were ordered to suppress alleged acts of heresy by the conservative religious leaders in the government. I think "the liberals" will just have strong words.

4

James Howlette 8 months, 1 week ago

It is obvious from birth what the color/race a person is.

Not always, but let's set that aside. Is it obvious what religion they are? Should employees be allowed to deny service to Christians and get no repercussions from their employer, so long as they have a strongly held belief against Christians?

Homosexuality is discerned by the actions of people.

Again, so is religion. But the better example, since we're talking about marriage, is a marriage of people from two different races. That's an action. That's a choice. There are people who have strong religious convictions against interracial marriages. Bob Jones University had a ban on interracial dating until it caused problems for the GOP when Bush gave a speech there. That's some seriously recent history.

If sexual identification is determined by DNA and so moral, then pedophiles, rapists and bestiality can claim they are moral.

Non sequitur. We're talking about consenting adults.

Is it right to argue that the disposition a person has when born makes the future actions OK?

You don't have to think it's ok to be gay in order to think this is a dumb law.

Should a homosexual in the business be required to print signs for the “protests” of Fred Phelps? No? Then why should those opposed to same-sex marriage be forced to service those weddings?

They're not, but that's beside the point. This law is bad AND overly broad. Hospitals? The police? Yeah, I don't think they should have a vote on whether or not they get to do their jobs based on the sexual orientation of the person needing assistance.

Is it truly hate speech or bigotry to disagree with the actions of some and not want to be involved in their activity?

Well, we can argue about the hate speech of equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia, but there's noting preventing you from disagreeing right now. Didn't you just pen a letter to the editor? I'm fairly sure no one showed up to arrest you after you did so.

Does our Creator have rights? Surely those are important to take into consideration.

Unless you've got a way to get the Creator to show up to a legislative session in person to spell it out for us, it seems to me that any "rights" He may claim are just the interpretations of mortals.

19

Leslie Swearingen 8 months, 1 week ago

One of the most horrific things I have ever heard is the right of hospitals to deny homosexuals the right to visit loved ones in the hospital when they are sick and dying. This needs to be changed and soon.

6

James Howlette 8 months, 1 week ago

I shake my head at the hypocrisy of claiming the moral high ground on that one. Deny someone access to their loved one because they did something in the bedroom you thought was icky.

4

Richard Smith 8 months ago

RS-Letter: It is obvious from birth what the color/race a person is.

JH: Not always, but let's set that aside. Is it obvious what religion they are? Should employees be allowed to deny service to Christians and get no repercussions from their employer, so long as they have a strongly held belief against Christians?

RS: But you are missing the point, quite badly I might add. The point has to do with homosexuals equating what they are going though with the civil rights movement. The sole issue that may point addressed (in this case) was that. You did not address that.

RS-Letter: Homosexuality is discerned by the actions of people.

JH: Again, so is religion. But the better example, since we're talking about marriage, is a marriage of people from two different races. That's an action. That's a choice. There are people who have strong religious convictions against interracial marriages. Bob Jones University had a ban on interracial dating until it caused problems for the GOP when Bush gave a speech there. That's some seriously recent history.

RS: But again, you are not addressing the point I made. Homosexuality is an action and that action is not determined at birth and as such it is not parallel with the civil rights movement.

RS-Letter: If sexual identification is determined by DNA and so moral, then pedophiles, rapists and bestiality can claim they are moral.

JH: Non sequitur. We're talking about consenting adults.

RS: It is not a non sequitor at all. The issue at this point is sexual identification and whether it is determined at birth or not.

1

James Howlette 8 months ago

I'm not at all missing the point you tried and failed to make.

You: being gay is choice, so we should be able to discriminate against gay people for their actions.

Me: so is marrying someone of a different race. So is being of a different religion.

You: crickets.

You: But maybe being gay isn't a choice, so it's the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality.

Me: We're talking about consenting adults, so it's not the same thing at all, even if you had actual credible evidence showing people were born with the desire to have sex with animals. Besides, it doesn't matter if someone is born gay. I just provided you with two things that aren't determined at birth and that still aren't ok to discriminate against.

You: maybe if I repeat my points again, they'll become actual points.

2

Richard Smith 8 months ago

JH: I'm not at all missing the point you tried and failed to make.

RS: Okay, you did not miss them, but you simply didn't address the real point.

JH saying this is RS' point: You: being gay is choice, so we should be able to discriminate against gay people for their actions.

JH: so is marrying someone of a different race. So is being of a different religion.

RS: But again, that is not my point. I have never said that one should be able to discriminate against gay people and that is not a logical deduction from what I actually said. The point I made and you missed is that we cannot look to how a person is born (inclinations one may be born with) in order to determine what is moral.

JH saying this is RS' point: You: But maybe being gay isn't a choice, so it's the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality.

RS: No, and a thousand times no, that was not the point. Again, we are not willing to allow that some inclinations a person may be born with are not acceptable, so why do we make that argument for homosexuality? I am not equating these things, but simply showing you (trying, again) that the argument that because someone is born with an inclination does not make their future actions moral.

JH: We're talking about consenting adults, so it's not the same thing at all, even if you had actual credible evidence showing people were born with the desire to have sex with animals. Besides, it doesn't matter if someone is born gay. I just provided you with two things that aren't determined at birth and that still aren't ok to discriminate against.

RS: The issue, again, is not about two consenting adults. But even then you have a lot of problems with trying to say that if something is between two consenting adults it is automatically okay. You have yet to show that this bill is meant to allow discrimination, nor have you shown us that discrimination is even wrong. I am aware that you don't like it in this case, but that does not make it wrong. Note, I am not arguing for or against it, but simply assuming that something is wrong if you throw out a word (like throwing mud on a wall) is not an argument.

JH Misrepresenting RS AGain: You: maybe if I repeat my points again, they'll become actual points.

RS: If you wish to enter into a real discussion, you should really try to stick with what is said rather than making assumptions about what was said and then pretending that I said those.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

I'm starting to think that not even you know what your point is.

As I've said repeatedly, even if you could convince us that being gay was a choice that someone made at some point in their adulthood, it wouldn't matter. So what? Religion most definitely is a choice someone makes in adulthood, and I'm not about to tell you that I consider each and every religion to be equally moral. Marrying someone of a different race is a choice that people make in adulthood, and Bob Jones University would have whipped out the bible not too long ago to tell you how they thought that was immoral.

I've lead you to water, Richard. You're the one refusing to drink. Read the bill. It's right here. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf It's clearly allowing discrimination. If it's not allowing discrimination, why does it need to even be a law? If there is nothing new that this bill provides, why even suggest it?

3

Richard Smith 8 months ago

RS-Letter: Is it right to argue that the disposition a person has when born makes the future actions OK?

JH: You don't have to think it's ok to be gay in order to think this is a dumb law.

RS: You did not address the question. Stating that it is a dumb law is not the same things as demonstrating that it is a dumb law.

RS-Letter Should a homosexual in the business be required to print signs for the “protests” of Fred Phelps? No? Then why should those opposed to same-sex marriage be forced to service those weddings?

JH: They're not, but that's beside the point. This law is bad AND overly broad. Hospitals? The police? Yeah, I don't think they should have a vote on whether or not they get to do their jobs based on the sexual orientation of the person needing assistance.

RS: It is not beside the point as that is the real driving point of the law. It may be that the law as stated is overly broad, but I am trying to get at the intent of the law. I am not sure that the intent of the law has anything to do with what you are saying.

RS-Letter: Is it truly hate speech or bigotry to disagree with the actions of some and not want to be involved in their activity?

JH: Well, we can argue about the hate speech of equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia, but there's noting preventing you from disagreeing right now.

RS: But note that if you read it carefully I was not equating homosexuality with those things, but instead making the point that just because a person with an inclination or a particular sexual identification does not make the future acts of that person okay. That is a separate argument. But then again, how is it hate speech even if I did equate those things? Is it hate speech to disagree with certain groups or to assert certain things even if I don't hate people?

JH: Didn't you just pen a letter to the editor? I'm fairly sure no one showed up to arrest you after you did so.

RS: That is true, but it has nothing to do with the point at hand.

RS-Letter: Does our Creator have rights? Surely those are important to take into consideration.

JH: Unless you've got a way to get the Creator to show up to a legislative session in person to spell it out for us, it seems to me that any "rights" He may claim are just the interpretations of mortals.

RS: Ah, the old claim that it may be that there is a God but He is silent. Anything that a mortal says, then, is just considered an interpretation of mortals. Could it be that your position on this is just another interpretation of a mortal when the truth of the matter is that it is rather plain for all to see?

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

You: You have not talked about or shown how this is a dumb law. Let me proceed to go down the list of ways that you outline how this is a dumb law and agree with many of them.

Me: So basically you're agreeing that this law is overly broad and possibly unconstitutional, but you want us to know that you really don't like the gays, so you'd rather waste legislative time and money on this piece of garbage than admit that you shouldn't have supported it. If it goes too far and wouldn't survive a legal challenge, it's a dumb law.

You: is it hate speech to disparage groups on the basis of sexual orientation, such as claiming homosexuality is the same thing as pederasty or bestiality?

Me: Flips open dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hate+speech I did say we could "debate" the idea, but you're certainly taking the notion and running with it, now aren't you?

3

Richard Smith 8 months ago

JH providing a misrepresentation of RS: You: You have not talked about or shown how this is a dumb law. Let me proceed to go down the list of ways that you outline how this is a dumb law and agree with many of them.

JH: : So basically you're agreeing that this law is overly broad and possibly unconstitutional, but you want us to know that you really don't like the gays, so you'd rather waste legislative time and money on this piece of garbage than admit that you shouldn't have supported it. If it goes too far and wouldn't survive a legal challenge, it's a dumb law.

RS: No, I am not arguing about the law as to whether it is too broad or not. It may be, but that is not part of the issue. The real point at hand is whether a person should be forced to provide services at a homosexual marriage if the person has strong religous reasons for not doing so?

JH Misrepresenting RS AGain: You: is it hate speech to disparage groups on the basis of sexual orientation, such as claiming homosexuality is the same thing as pederasty or bestiality?

RS: I am not disparaging and (as repeated several times) am not claiming that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophila or bestiality. Again, the point has to do with whether sexual orientation, since your argument appears to be people are born with an orientation and that makes the actions okay, automatically mean that the behavior is acceptable or moral.

JH: Flips open dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hate+speech I did say we could "debate" the idea, but you're certainly taking the notion and running with it, now aren't you?

RS: A dictionary doth not a good argument make.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Then your whole point could have been answered with a little research before you decided to write that letter. Nobody is forcing you to provide services at a gay wedding. Problem solved. Go about your merry (but not at all gay because you think that's icky) way.

I'm not sure why you're insisting that "my argument" is that people are born with an orientation that "makes their actions ok." If you want to keep insisting that I haven't dealt with your arguments, it would really help if you bothered to read what I typed.

3

Richard Smith 8 months ago

FreeDictionary: Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

RS: I am not attacking or disparaging any group or a member of such a group.

Free Dictionary: extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

RS: Interesting, that sure seems to describe your words more than mine. I am more interested in a rational discourse than calling names.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

You're comparing gay people to pederasts. That usually counts as disparaging.

Ah yes, the old "you're so intolerant of my intolerance" canard. I've found that's usually the last, desperate resting place of the bigot losing the argument.

I do have a certain tolerance for your intolerance, as it happens. Hence my having repeatedly telling you that nobody is forcing you to believe a certain way. I'll stand up for your right to say disparaging things, but you're till going to get an earful from me if I disagree. I guess you're going to have to figure out a different meaning for "extreme" if you want to keep feeling like the martyr on that one.

3

Richard Smith 8 months ago

JH: You're comparing gay people to pederasts. That usually counts as disparaging.

RS: No, as I have repeatedly said, I am not doing that. The point has to do with sexual orientation from birth and not comparing the two. Sigh.

JH: Ah yes, the old "you're so intolerant of my intolerance" canard. I've found that's usually the last, desperate resting place of the bigot losing the argument.

RS: Sure enough all people are intolerant of some postion, but I am not a bigot and I am not losing this argument. All you have done so far is grossly misunderstand or perhaps purposely misrepresent.

JH: I do have a certain tolerance for your intolerance, as it happens. Hence my having repeatedly telling you that nobody is forcing you to believe a certain way. I'll stand up for your right to say disparaging things, but you're till going to get an earful from me if I disagree. I guess you're going to have to figure out a different meaning for "extreme" if you want to keep feeling like the martyr on that one.

RS: But I am not saying anything disparaging. You simply continue your path of misunderstanding. There is a huge difference between A is the same thing as B and then saying look at the two as an illustration.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Did you read your own LTE? You compared homosexuality to pederasty, rape, and bestiality. It's right there on your fifth point. It's probably the dumbest point you tried to make in the whole letter.

3

Richard Smith 8 months ago

James Howlette Did you read your own LTE? You compared homosexuality to pederasty, rape, and bestiality. It's right there on your fifth point. It's probably the dumbest point you tried to make in the whole letter.

RS: Yes, I have read it, but it appears that you have not. I explained this several times, even just above. The point is not comparing homosexuality with those things, but to show that no one really accepts that fact that all things that can be considered our orientations are acceptable if they are carried out. I have reproduced point five below, but notice that I have given points 3-7. Why is that? It is because they provide the context.

  1. The most one can claim is that some are born with an attraction (later manifested) to the same sex.
  2. Homosexuality is discerned by the actions of people.
  3. If sexual identification is determined by DNA and so moral, then pedophiles, rapists, and bestiality can claim they are moral.
  4. Is a hot-tempered person excused for actions if born with that disposition?
  5. Is it right to argue that the disposition a person has when born makes the future actions okay?
0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Your defense that you're not doing it is to keep doing it? Really? I haven't met someone so self unaware in quite a long time.

1

Richard Smith 8 months ago

From the Bill:

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other nonreligious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the individual's employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer.

RS: What is the harm in the bill since it basically says that the employer should get the work done but just not make a particular employee do it? Doesn't this protect the rights of both sides?

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

So how much bleeding out time is acceptable while the employer goes to find a new ambulance driver? There are certain jobs that simply cannot wait while you go find someone who isn't busy demonstrating their love of Jesus by denying someone basic human decency.

Besides, the bill says "if it can be done without undue hardship of the employer, " which implies that it is OK to deny the services completely. This bill doesn't protect anything but bigotry.

2

Addie Line 8 months, 1 week ago

I wonder if the original poster would still find this bill "nonsense" if it were his rights being restricted.

6

Richard Smith 8 months ago

AL: I wonder if the original poster would still find this bill "nonsense" if it were his rights being restricted.

RS: What rights would really and in fact be restricted if this bill were to be passed? If we set aside all the fanfare and things that are being said about it, what rights are being restricted? Are you concerned that the rights of others may be trampled on if this bill is not passed?

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Well, since you're the one writing the LTE, it seems to me that you're the one that should have researched the bill before claiming you had the moral high ground. It's right here: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

It is so broadly written that police officers could refuse to respond to a situation. Hospitals could refuse care. Do you really think that homosexuality is a big enough sin that a gay person should be left dying in a car crash if their gay partner is in the passenger seat? Is that the sort of thing Jesus would have told you to do?

2

Phil Minkin 8 months, 1 week ago

I was going to point out the fallacies in the letter writer's logic, but Mr. Howlette in a previous post did a far better job than I could. Thanks.

8

Leslie Swearingen 8 months, 1 week ago

"But scientific opinion is with Macklemore. Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals."

ww.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

We are all people. Brothers and sisters created by the One Creator, so deal. Yes, I know that brothers and sisters do not always get along, sometimes we fight with each other, but never do we deny the essential relationship.

4

Fred Mertz 8 months, 1 week ago

I have no doubt that some people who are not gay do engage in homosexual acts, but for the vast majority it is who they are and as they were born.

Here is all the proof you need. There is no way anyone could make me be gay. Yes, they might force me to pretend to be gay, but I'd be miserable, depressed and maybe suicidal. You know, kinda like gays who are pressured to deny their sexual identity.

2

Richard Smith 8 months ago

BM: I have no doubt that some people who are not gay do engage in homosexual acts, but for the vast majority it is who they are and as they were born.

RS: What person do you know that was born doing homosexual acts? The point is that at the most that can be claimed is that a person is oriented that way. I would also argue that who a person is should be the fact that s/he is a human being created in the image of God and not a homosexual or not.

BM: Here is all the proof you need. There is no way anyone could make me be gay.

RS: How is that all the proof that is needed? The real issue is what is moral and not whether a person is born with a certain orientation or not. As stated in the letter, if a person's sexual orientation and other oreintations are determined by birth and that alone makes it right, then that opens us to many things that we won't want to go there. Can a pedophile claim that was the way he was born and so now it is okay? Can a person with a terrible temper who gets angry and shoots people now claim that it is okay because he was born that way? The argument that people are that way from birth is not a good argument.

BM: Yes, they might force me to pretend to be gay, but I'd be miserable, depressed and maybe suicidal. You know, kinda like gays who are pressured to deny their sexual identity.

RS: Another way of looking at it is that people know from down in their heart that this is not moral behavior and so they are miserable, depressed, and suicidal. Sin leads to misery. Sure enough the instances and rates of depression, alcoholism, drug use, and suicide are much higher in the "gay community", but that may be because of the behavior rather than because of a few who are just saying that it is wrong. Cause and effect.

0

Betty Bartholomew 8 months ago

"RS: What person do you know that was born doing homosexual acts?"

Really? What person do you know that was born doing heterosexual acts?

Furthermore, if you think homosexuality is a choice, do you really believe somebody would choose an orientation that carries with it such anonymity from others? "Gosh, oh, golly, gay people are persecuted, attacked, murdered, reviled, denied things others take for granted: That sounds so fun I want to be gay!" <-- Said no one ever.

Lastly, you keep trying to parallel homosexuality and being in a homosexual relationship with things that do real, measurable harm to victims: pedophilia and violent acts.

Quit it.

Normal homosexuality does not have a perpetrator and a victim just like normal heterosexuality does not - "normal" here meaning "Sexual attraction to another adult". Being offended by somebody's normal sexuality does not a victim make.

Oops, didn't read far enough:

"RS: Another way of looking at it is that people know from down in their heart that this is not moral behavior and so they are miserable, depressed, and suicidal. Sin leads to misery. Sure enough the instances and rates of depression, alcoholism, drug use, and suicide are much higher in the "gay community", but that may be because of the behavior rather than because of a few who are just saying that it is wrong."

Yeah, that has nothing to do with being bullied, persecuted, told you're abnormal. on the level of pedophiles and murderers, and not deserving of being respected as a human. Nothing at all.

Good grief.

1

Betty Bartholomew 8 months ago

Animosity, not anonymity - stupid fingers.

0

Richard Smith 8 months ago

Betty Bartholomew BB quoting "RS: What person do you know that was born doing homosexual acts?"

BB: Really? What person do you know that was born doing heterosexual acts?

RS: No one, of course. Therefore, as was the point, no one is born a homosexual. The very most that one can claim is that one is born with an inclination.

BB: Furthermore, if you think homosexuality is a choice, do you really believe somebody would choose an orientation that carries with it such anonymity from others? "Gosh, oh, golly, gay people are persecuted, attacked, murdered, reviled, denied things others take for granted: That sounds so fun I want to be gay!" <-- Said no one ever.

RS: Where, in the U.S., are all of these things taking place at a pace that is more than the general population and is not self-inflicted? Your point does not demonstrate what you are wanting. People commit all kinds of wrongs without taking into due consideration of what will happen.

BB: Lastly, you keep trying to parallel homosexuality and being in a homosexual relationship with things that do real, measurable harm to victims: pedophilia and violent acts.

RS: No, I have not been paralleling those things. What I have tried to show is that how a person is born does not give them an excuse for how they behave later.

BB: Quit it.

RS: There is no need for me to quit making solid points even if you are not reading them correctly. Again, the point about pedophilia and those who do violent acts is that they can also claim that they were born that way or with that inclination. My point, again, is that being born with certain inclinations does not do away with their moral obligations later on. Your comments make this point as well.

0

Richard Smith 8 months ago

BB: Normal homosexuality does not have a perpetrator and a victim just like normal heterosexuality does not - "normal" here meaning "Sexual attraction to another adult". Being offended by somebody's normal sexuality does not a victim make.

RS: Without going into great detail, one person and one couple does not live in complete isolation from themselves, from others, or from God. I have yet to assert that the problem with homosexuality is that it offends me, but in fact that it is a sin against God.

BB: Oops, didn't read far enough:

BB quoting "RS: Another way of looking at it is that people know from down in their heart that this is not moral behavior and so they are miserable, depressed, and suicidal. Sin leads to misery. Sure enough the instances and rates of depression, alcoholism, drug use, and suicide are much higher in the "gay community", but that may be because of the behavior rather than because of a few who are just saying that it is wrong."

BB: Yeah, that has nothing to do with being bullied, persecuted, told you're abnormal. on the level of pedophiles and murderers, and not deserving of being respected as a human. Nothing at all.

RS: That sounds more like a self-induced pity party than a real argument. Again, the issue is not about what is normal in this world or what people consider as normal, but about what is sinful. When you get down to it, as you think of how homosexuals are treated in Lawrence and for much of the U.S., there is not all of that stuff you are complaining about at a higher percentage than the rest of the population. Do you have data that demonstrates that the murder rate for the homosexual population (not committed in a domestic type situation) is higher than the general population? On another note, it is because homosexuals are human beings that they need to consider that the Creator of human beings will being all to judgment.

BB: Good grief.

RS: Take some time to consider the fact that I may be right and that you simply don't like it and must reject it to keep some semblance of peace.

0

Richard Smith 8 months ago

LS: "But scientific opinion is with Macklemore. Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals."

RS: The research is rather problematic, however, as it is hard to know whether the brains are that way from birth or whether the activity engaged in has somethign to do with the differences in the brain.

LS: ww.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

LS: We are all people. Brothers and sisters created by the One Creator, so deal. Yes, I know that brothers and sisters do not always get along, sometimes we fight with each other, but never do we deny the essential relationship.

RS: Indeed all people are created by one Creator, but we must also take into acount of other information as well. For example, the issue of the fall of human beings into sin and the nature of sin. Jesus told people during His time on earth that they were children of the devil. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has to do with the rescue of those who are children of the devil and them being reconciled ot God and becoming children of God.

0

Steve King 8 months, 1 week ago

I choose to refuse service to the letter writer.

4

Richard Smith 8 months ago

SK: I choose to refuse service to the letter writer.

RS: According to some of the previous responders that you make you guilty of hate speech and bigotry. Personally, I think you should be able to refuse service to me.Whether it is right or not is another issue.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Which previous responders said that? It's cheating to pretend that you've got the moral high ground when all you're doing is making a straw man argument.

1

Richard Smith 8 months ago

JH: Which previous responders said that? It's cheating to pretend that you've got the moral high ground when all you're doing is making a straw man argument.

RS: No straw man at all.

Previous comment by JH: Well, we can argue about the hate speech of equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia,

RS: I was not cheating and there is no straw man at all. I simply made a point and I think that the point stands. We cannot continue to accuse people of hate speech if we disagree with what they say or even don't like it. It is a politically correct term that brings up feelings into the subject but is useless for making a real point unless it is used to show that it makes no real point. I might add that the terms "hate bill" has been used many times as well. We should try to get to the real issues with real arguments.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

Hmmm, I don't think I said "refusing to serve an individual who discriminates against others is a form of hate speech and bigotry." Because that's not at all what I said. You're continuing to make a straw man argument, and now you're playing the (willfully ignorant) martyr.

1

Richard Smith 8 months ago

JH: Hmmm, I don't think I said "refusing to serve an individual who discriminates against others is a form of hate speech and bigotry." Because that's not at all what I said. You're continuing to make a straw man argument, and now you're playing the (willfully ignorant) martyr.

RS: So far you have not honestly dealt with one argument that I have made.

0

James Howlette 8 months ago

I've honestly dealt with all of them. You've pretty much just moved the goalposts or ignored what I've said. I guess it's easier than admitting that you're wrong.

1

Seth Peterson 8 months ago

You've yet to make an argument worth addressing.

1

Addie Line 8 months ago

That's cute, Richard seemingly thinks that his letter and comments on an internet webpage will radically change someone's mind and point of view on this subject that most feel very strongly about.

2

Richard Smith 8 months ago

AL: That's cute, Richard seemingly thinks that his letter and comments on an internet webpage will radically change someone's mind and point of view on this subject that most feel very strongly about.

RS: What I would assert is that just because a person feels strongly about something does not make that something an objective truth. Many people feel strongly about things that are not right in the realm of truth and of morality. Our feelings do not determine truth and in fact lead us into great error if we follow them rather than following the truth itself. I would also wonder why you think that "most feel very strongly about" when that does not appear to be the case. Perhaps you feel strongly about it and others you know feel strongly about it, but that does not mean that most feel strongly about it. I would hope, however, that some would be interested in looking at the basic arguments and positions.

0

Rick Masters 8 months ago

For a moment, it looked like someone was cutting/pasting the "Who's on First?" script. We need to bring back that argument about whether or not a baker at Hy-Vee has to make a cake for a Satanist. That was a good one.

1

Addie Line 8 months ago

My point was that it seems as though topics such as religion, abortion, gay rights are "hot button" issues that most people (in my experience) have unwavering opinions on. I've yet to see someone change their religious views, for example, based on Internet forum comments. I suppose that doesn't mean it can't happen. It seems just as likely that you are going to convince me to become Christian as it is that I would convince you to be an atheist. Is anyone really going to have some piece of logic that will suddenly change your views and opinion on this bill? Probably not, I am guessing, since I cannot imagine anything that would cause me to suddenly change my views and opinions either. We are all talking ourselves in circles.

0

Richard Smith 8 months ago

MW: Sometimes it's commendable to see authors of opinion pieces come on the comment section to defend their opinions. Other times it only makes it worse for them. It's clear that we're dealing with the latter and not the former as Richard continues to dig his hole of religious bigotry that much deeper.

RS: But of course there is a huge difference between stating the truth and having people think of it as bigotry than it actually being bigotry. According to your position, it would appear, that when Jesus said He was the only way to the Father that would make Him a bigot. It would also mean that when Jesus said that all who rejected Him had the wrath of God abiding on them, that would again make Him a bigot. Perhaps you are just responding with names than dealing with actual positions.

MW: 'd tell you to stop, Richard, but it's both entertaining and instructional to see just how extremist and prejudiced your views are here. By all means continue.

RS: Thanks for your permission. But do realize that what you are calling extremist and prejudiced was considered by Jesus to be absolute Truth.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.