That's the liberals' favorite game: Make a false accusation, then accuse the other side of whining when called on it.
Well, you're whining, so I guess it affected you.
As for it being a "false accusation," I don't agree, obviously.
What are you on about?
We shouldn't write laws based on the popularity of an idea. We should write laws based on what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to force a business to serve when they do not wish to serve. It is the right of every business owner to refuse service as they see fit.
And if homosexuals want to be treated like normal people, they should not act abnormally. Equality comes by conforming to the rules. Those who do not conform should face consequences. It is not abnormal to be a Christian.
Not getting cake seems like a fairly tame consequence, by the way.
Whose rules? Your rules, of course; your right and wrong is based in religious belief and you would see the government be based in the same. Equality under your system would only come by conforming to your religious rules. So yeah, not getting cake is certainly more tame than being executed, which is what you'd rather see happen. And that's why we don't have a theocracy.
(And I'm not going to deal with the semantics relating to the use of "religious beliefs" vs. "Christian beliefs." Christianity is a religion.)
See, that would have been an appropriate response. We have competing ideas, now we can discuss them. :up:
What's to discuss? I mean, really. You want to kill them, I don't. You pretend it has nothing to do with religious belief, I know better. You play with semantics, I watch you in fascination.
Which shows you have no idea what the battle is.
I do. I just think you're going about it all wrong. Anytime you want to talk about your vote for executing homosexuals, let me know.
