Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 26, 2021

Some Republicans worry that this week's controversial antics from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have stomped on their attempts to sensitively communicate why they are opposed.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Divisions?

Every gopper but three said it is okay to use the invisible sky man as justification for their hate.

Who did Jesus say it was okay to hate in his teachings?

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-02-26 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

First - When has the GOP EVER been sensitive about topics like this? I can't think of anytime. Not just LGBTQ.

Second - Their issue is the "perceived" impact on religious freedom. There is no impact. Churches set their own rules and people have their own individual beliefs. You don't want to be welcoming to LGBTQ you don't have to be. However meantime in the REAL world and business you have to treat them fairly. I mean the equal rights amendment period probably stomps on their religious freedom in regard to say blacks.

"The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins." - Victor Hugo

What I find ironic is that in General Conservatives don't understand what that quote means. In a nutshell if Religion is the argument - you are welcome to have your religious beliefs however they can not impact the way you deal with other people based - in this case - their LGBTQ status. You can't discriminate against them...

#2 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-02-26 02:45 PM | Reply

Nixon,

"Who did Jesus say it was okay to hate in his teachings?"

We'll see who is full of hatred if this passes.

Churches that teach children homosexuality is a sin and two people of the same sex are only married on paper and can not be married in the eyes of God will be targeted.

Religious freedom will be challenged.

Women also need to be concerned they will lose specific rights.

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-26 08:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Churches that teach children homosexuality is a sin and two people of the same sex are only married on paper and can not be married in the eyes of God will be targeted."

Good.

Hateful intolerant bigotry has no place in a tolerant society.

Let's target the Mosques and Synagogues that preach hate too!

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-26 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Religious freedom will be challenged."

Religious freedom is just a cover story for hateful bigoted intolerance.

Why don't you have the religious freedom to commit human sacrifice, BillJohnson?

Was that religious freedom challenged too?

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-26 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy,

How should the churches be dealt with who complain about religious freedom?

How should women be dealt with who get upset when they lose awards and scholarships to competitors with male physiques?

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-26 09:09 PM | Reply

"How should the churches be dealt with who complain about religious freedom?"

Churches should be given religious freedom so long as they don't use it to harm others.

It's ridiculous that the Native American Church had to fight so hard to get the right to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. They should have been granted a wide enough berth to do that.

But if your version of Religious Freedom is building a compound and filling it with women, I won't cry too hard for you when Janet Reno sends in the tanks.

That was the wrong way to handle that issue, but "religious freedom" taken to those kinds of extremes starts running into pretty rocky ground on the "harm to others" front.

But if you just want to handle snakes, I don't really think it's worth the State's dime to come in and stop you. It just shouldn't be a priority.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-26 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Religious freedom will be challenged.
Women also need to be concerned they will lose specific rights.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2021-02-26 08:58 PM | REPLY

You're just mad that you couldn't or wouldn't live honestly and openly so you'll attack those who do live openly and honestly. The sad part is you'll hide behind the cloak of "Religious Freedom" to do it. That's not what the 1st was inteded for. To use as a weapon against equal rights.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-26 09:32 PM | Reply

Laura,

Rather than acting snarky, why not answer my question.

What should women be told who lose competitions to a transgender and feel it was unfair?

Don't turn my question around and make it about you.

Do you have any thoughts what to say to women?

#9 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-26 10:12 PM | Reply

I'll answer your question Bill when you start including trans women with cis women in you discussions about women's sports. Until then we have nothing to discuss.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-26 10:21 PM | Reply

Laura, what is cis women?

#11 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-02-26 10:29 PM | Reply

Laura,

So you're ducking the question.

Can't say I blame you.

#12 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-26 10:42 PM | Reply

You are not opposed to this bill solely
because a few women might lose a sports award.

Be honest about the real reason.

#13 | Posted by bored at 2021-02-26 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Laura, what is cis women?

#11 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ AT 2021-02-26 10:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Their mind and body are congruent with each other. To put it simply.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-27 06:51 AM | Reply

Bored,

"Be honest about the real reason."

Ok...I'll summarize.

Leave minors alone. (require middle and high school minors to stay within boundaries reflected on their birth certificate...sports/restrooms) Hormone therapy is another conversation that needs more research.

Leave women and children alone. Maintain traditional male/female restrooms and changing rooms and create an alternative space for transgender people.

Ban transgenders from participating in professional sports on teams different from their birth gender.

The military and tax payers do not pay for reassignment surgery and maintenance thereafter. That is for insurance to pay, not tax payers.

Add provisions guaranteeing Freedom of Religion and protection of organized religion for established churches (no stupid made up strainer heads or fake churches).

I'm sure there are more things I might think of later but you want to know my concerns about this issue.

Personally, I do not see "transgender rights" and "gay rights" as one and the same. They are different issues.

This is a boiled down summary of my views.

#15 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-27 09:52 AM | Reply

Laura,
So you're ducking the question.
Can't say I blame you.
POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2021-02-26 10:42 PM | REPLY

I'm not ducking the question honey. I just refuse to deal with people like you who refuse to see us as equals. You know life is too short to deal with people like you.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-27 10:33 AM | Reply

#15 So you want the state involved in the health care decisions of a minor, their family and their health care provider? How about let people be free to make their own choices, with medical professional supervision?

Restroom usage is a mountain made from a mole hill. People using a restroom should not be harassed, no matter their gender.

I have no problem with an Olympic or pro sports rule that requires women athletes to be born female, again another faux rage mole hill.

I don't see a difference between the military paying for Viagra or HRT for trans genders. If doctors prescribe it, health care should be paid for. Another mole hill.

You will have to define Freedom of Religion, and why an established church matters. The bible says owning slaves is okay, does freedom of religion protect slavery?

#17 | Posted by bored at 2021-02-27 10:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Bible says owning slaves is ok.

Well maybe but the authors sure did a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth as they were herded into Babylon.

#18 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-02-27 10:48 AM | Reply

"What should women be told who lose competitions to a transgender and feel it was unfair?"

I would tell them to take it up with the rules committee. The rules could be changed to exclude transgender women. I'm honestly not sure why this hasn't happened.

People losing at sports doesn't feel like a problem in my life.

What makes it feel like your problem, BillJohnson?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-27 11:23 AM | Reply

"Personally, I do not see "transgender rights" and "gay rights" as one and the same. They are different issues."

The common thread is "it's okay to discriminate against immoral behavior that goes against G-d and nature."

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-27 11:24 AM | Reply

#20 Snoofy ,you hit that nail on the head.

Two things I find hard to tolerate:
Ex-smokers
Bill Johnson

#21 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-02-27 11:39 AM | Reply

Haha, I'm #1, suck it BillJohnson!

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-27 11:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

While I don't care if
you have an Adam's apple you don't belong in womens sports IMO. In no time the WNBA will be nothing but NBA rejects that say they feel pretty.
I don't believe they should be discriminated against but allowing them into women's sports discriminates against women. Other then sports they should treated as equals in every way... but I still don't feel required to play make believe and call a dude a chick.
If I want to pretend I'm good enough to be a NFL quarterback, I don't expect them to justify my beliefs... I would expect to get laughed at... is that discrimination?

No offense intended, just speaking my point of view.

#23 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-02-27 12:23 PM | Reply

Religious freedom will be challenged.

Religious freedom is the right to practice whichever religion you want.

It doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others.

If you think religious freedom means you get to be a hateful pos.

You are very mistaken and your religious beliefs suck.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-02-27 04:07 PM | Reply

Bored,

"You will have to define Freedom of Religion, and why an established church matters."

It is only a matter of time until gay couples take the same route against churches they have taken against Christian businesses that do not want to provide a particular service. The business said they'll do business with the gay couple in any other capacity...just not that particular service.

The business even offered to help the couple find a suitable alternative but no...the couple was determined to press the point.

At some point a gay couple is guaranteed to request to use a church for their wedding and be declined.

A law suit will ensue.

That is one instance where Freedom of Religion will be challenged.

Will it be considered discrimination or will this be a protected right for churches?

#25 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-28 05:50 PM | Reply

To me, Freedom of religion means there are no laws against religions. That doesn't mean any religious practice is automatically legal.---------- or ------- mutilation being two.

The bill in question doesn't affect religious freedom.

Churches can be private clubs that decide on members, but in that case, their operations should not be tax exempt.

The main effect of the bill is it doesn't let discrimatory bigots hide behind their sham religious beliefs.

#26 | Posted by bored at 2021-02-28 06:04 PM | Reply

If the business is a public one then they do not have a right to discriminate. Don't like it make it a private one.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-28 06:17 PM | Reply

Laura,

abcnews.go.com

This issue isn't so cut and dry.

Here is a case where the baker won at the Supreme Court over a wedding cake but found himself in court again where, in my opinion, he was just being targeted.

Religious convictions do matter.

While you are correct discrimination is wrong, not wanting to provide a certain service to a gay couple isn't necessarily discrimination.

Personally, this is another area I don't believe "gay marriage" is necessarily part of "gay rights". Gay people deserve all rights and privileges provided by "marriage", but it's not a given "marriage" is the only way this must be accomplished. Protections of relationships and recognition that 2 people are legally a couple is a right as far as I'm concerned. But "marriage" isn't necessarily the way it must be done. "Marriage" is not a gay right. Legal protection is.

Interestingly, Gay Marriage became federally recognized not so much because it was determined gays are entitled to marriage. What the Supreme Court said was states must recognize same sex marriages that were done legally in states that do support it.

From what I've read, Gay Marriage exists nationwide de facto. It came in through the back door, so to speak.

Now the question is will churches that do not recognize same sex marriage and certainly not permit it be done in their sanctuary be forced to accept it and make it part of their doctrine de facto.

I encourage anyone who wants to explain to me how Gay Marriage passed the Supreme Court in a different perspective.

#28 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-28 08:49 PM | Reply

Now...just to be clear.

As a Christian I do not believe same sex "marriage" can be sanctified by God. That's what I believe. Liberal churches would say otherwise.

However, there is most certainly nothing stopping gay couples from making vows and openly professing their love and commitment to one another.

If I were single...I wouldn't mind getting married to a guy.

However, I would do it in a church that makes it part of their doctrine.

Am I right...am I wrong? I don't know for sure.

What I do believe is Forgiveness and Grace in the name of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of my faith.

All people are sinners...period...and the only path to forgiveness is the blood of Christ.

No one is perfect or sinless.

Most certainly not me.

#29 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-02-28 09:06 PM | Reply

While you are correct discrimination is wrong, not wanting to provide a certain service to a gay couple isn't necessarily discrimination.

It absolutely IS discrimination. It's no difference than denying a certain service to a black couple
Personally, this is another area I don't believe "gay marriage" is necessarily part of "gay rights". Gay people deserve all rights and privileges provided by "marriage", but it's not a given "marriage" is the only way this must be accomplished. Protections of relationships and recognition that 2 people are legally a couple is a right as far as I'm concerned. But "marriage" isn't necessarily the way it must be done. "Marriage" is not a gay right. Legal protection is.

It absolutely is part of gay rights. If straight marriages are lawful and protected and is a fundamental right then you better believe gay marriage falls within gay rights perameters.

Interestingly, Gay Marriage became federally recognized not so much because it was determined gays are entitled to marriage. What the Supreme Court said was states must recognize same sex marriages that were done legally in states that do support it.

Actually that is PRECISELY how it was ruled. It was declared a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to prevent gay people from marrying and have the same rights as straight couples
From what I've read, Gay Marriage exists nationwide de facto. It came in through the back door, so to speak.
Now the question is will churches that do not recognize same sex marriage and certainly not permit it be done in their sanctuary be forced to accept it and make it part of their doctrine de facto.
I encourage anyone who wants to explain to me how Gay Marriage passed the Supreme Court in a different perspective.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2021-02-28 08:49 PM | REPLY

#30 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-02-28 09:13 PM | Reply

"However, I would do it in a church that makes it part of their doctrine."

Sure sounds like you think gays are forcing priests to perform gay marriages against their will...

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-28 09:15 PM | Reply

"Now the question is will churches that do not recognize same sex marriage and certainly not permit it be done in their sanctuary be forced to accept it and make it part of their doctrine de facto."

The answer is no.

Why don't you believe me?

You have a need to feel persecuted, it seems.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-28 09:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort