2.) i agree depeding on the CONTEXT, in this discussion it was simply about rights violations and law breaking
3.)murder i agree, because a life is taken but buy what standard are the others different
4.) there is no force though no more than any other law which you are choosing to deem "different"
5.) no i did not, i used other examples of law breaking and rights violations. If he meant something different he should have been more specific. Making a equal analogy is not hyperbolic, in your head you heard rape and said hey wait a minute raping my sister isnt like discriminating against her and I agree but thats not how "i" compared them. the content was set by him.
he said those people should live and let live, and in doing so is said people who have crimes committed against them and thier rights violated should live and let live. Theres no other way to take his sentence under context. again if he didnt really mean what he siad he should have worded it better, so my question remains to him what other crimes agaisnt against a person and rights violations should people live and let live on.
The real issue is what i was in fact trying to point out, i realize that my example can easily be seen as extreme but it wasn't at all because of context. HE views crimes against gays and a violation of thier rights in these cases as no big deal and not worthy of any concern so i used other examples that fit the bill (crimes and rights violations) that he could no longer deny
the best part is most people would never tell a black person or women that if they had crimes committed against them or thier rights violated but they love telling the gays that . . .just live and let live. . . its hypocrisy and its dishonest.
where would you draw the line and why? and why is it "wrong" if others have a different line? when talking about crimes and rights violations who gets to say live and let live in one case but not in another . . .
I freely and honestly admit that i have a line too and might act differently is somebody illegally discriminated against me for something but i would never judge others for thier own line.
Maybe i would just find a different place to work, or apt to rent or another baker etc etc but that doesnt change the fact my rights were violated and laws were broken and i would never judge others for not allowing that. In fact if asked i would admit to the guilt that I helped enable those people to break laws and violate rights. I wouldnt like it but i would have to admit it because it would be true.
They got death threats and people calling to fire bomb the place, Dude.
There had been no service denied, nor even requested. Death threats FFS and not one of you alleged "liberals" has even condemned the act. In tacit silence you condone it. So, don't play the moral card here, you have none. So long and you and others make this sound like its a "review", you have no leg to stand on.
For 15 years this country has had gay and lesbian weddings and no one has an issue over ****ing pizza to the point of making death threats.
Grow up and enter the 20th century and the rest of the free world, then we'll talk about transsexual rights.
Death threats are a "review" my ass.
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
I see the issue pretty clearly now though. What a poster actually writes and what is made up in your head are two VERY different things. Maybe read and then reread slower in the furture to avoid those mistakes. You're welcome.
Back on topic that fact remains with or without you you agreeing. There was factually no attack on FAITH, the story was a farce nor does any ant discrimination law on this topic attack faith..