utbagpiper
Banned
You wouldn't. But it isn't "LDS literature" just because it was an address by an LDS church leader any more than MLK's "I have a dream speech" was "Baptist literature" or JFK's innagural "ask what you can do for your country" was "Catholic literature". The Beckett foundation is not LDS and Oaks spoke at least as much from his legal expertise as from his position as a church leader.
What a shame you are too dense to understand this immediately.
Oh. I see. So it would be ok, in your view, if a business was required to provide service to homosexuals, but was allowed to require them not to wear "Pride" or rainbow T-shirts, nor to hold hands with their partners. I mean, you can't leave your sexuality at the door, but you can leave your damned rainbows and pride paraphernalia in your car and go without expressing physical affection for a few minutes while getting a drink at Starbucks. I can't leave religion at the door, but I don't have to wear a CTR ring, Young Womanhood Recognition necklace, yarmulke, crucifix, priestly robes or collars, or turban while inside someone's store.
Such a position would be roundly denounced as appallingly bigoted. And I bet you don't actually support that. But you're fine using the same "logic" for RKBA. Think about THAT for a few minutes.
If I live long enough, I will almost certainly have a physical disability like most everyone else who lives long enough.
How tragic that you are seemingly incapable of understanding that just because I don't support government mandates doesn't mean I'm opposed to providing services and accommodation. You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow man and believe that they will do the "right thing" (ie what you want them to do) only if you force them to do so under government mandate.
I think most business owners have no interest in any kind of discrimination at all. I think the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws were founded on good intent, but with gross disregard for private property rights. I think they have become mostly full employment acts for lawyers and a lottery for a few militant types who give other minorities or disabled a bad name.
For the few business owners who do feel a moral need to avoid providing service to certain groups, individuals, or causes, I trust the market to sort it out. I think a guy who refuses to let a homosexual man, handicapped person, black woman, or mormon eat at his lunch counter is likely to go out of business. I suspect in most areas, however, the wedding photographer or baker or reception center owner or honeymoon hotel proprietor who declines to provide services to homosexual "weddings" will not have a problem keeping clients. Ditto the small business owner whose drinking fountain or mirror in his 100 year old building is a couple of inches higher than permitted by the ADA. And I think rational society understands there is nothing offensive about a mens' only, women's only, or no-children club.
But, so long as we have anti-discrimination laws, I see no reason to require me to leave my handgun in the car than there is to require a muslim to remove his headdress.
Good for you skippy. But who shoved religion down your throat on this thread? And if you have no use for religion, why do you even care what gun or other policies the LDS church has? The clearly don't affect you.
But you feel the need to jump on here and throw out a very common insult against churches. When I politely explain that your words are an insult, you don't apologize or rephrase, you double down.
That was never the question. But nice use of the logical fallacy of "moving the goal posts." Try to keep up.
You claimed you had no idea who I really was. I gave you a name a bio. Other board members have vouched for my identity. Leave it and move on. Question answered.
You are truly insane and delusional. The consequences of hiding behind a screen name is that your opinions carry less weight, you have less credibility with other forum members. There are rare exceptions where someone has a real need to avoid being overt about their identity. But you've offered no such explanation.
You are a keyboard warrior unwilling to attach your name to what you post. Everyone who reads what you post will be very acutely aware of that and give your opinions appropriate (lack of) credence as a result.
Calling it "an opinion" doesn't make it any less bigoted or offensive.
Is "dealing with mormons" kind of like "dealing with them mexicans"?
Keep typing, your bigotries are getting ever more clear.
If you'd like to get together to see if you can be more civil in person than when behind your keyboard, that would be fine. But at the first hint of incivility, I'll excuse myself.
And since I given more than enough info for anyone these days to find my home address in less than 5 minutes, while you continue to hide, calling me chicken is really quite childish. If you want to meet for an hour over lunch when I'm not working to see if we can get off on a better foot, I'm all for it. I think anonymity and the net bring out the worst in people, myself included, which is one reason I often do anything anonymously.
But neither do I meet anonymous strangers in person. So if you are serious, you'll need to advertise or at least PM your real name before we meet.
Charles
