kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have not promoted public accommodation laws. Or said schools should encourage transitioning children. I have not asked for my views to have privilege.

I am frustrated. . . Your entire posts are strawman arguments. Like I said, you are not engaging my posts. You are projecting far left ideologies onto me and engaging those ideas. When you stop doing that, we can talk.

---

Kurt tell me where my ability to practice my belief publicly stops. Give me a concrete example instead of an abstract. We live in the real world and inhabit physical places, not just metaphysical constructs. I'm trying to provide these but you're running away and calling them strawmen.

---

Sure. You are entitled to practice a belief that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. You may practice this life style publicly in your life. I disagree with efforts to inflict limitations of marriage arrangements on others based on your beliefs. I actually don't know if you are against legalized polygamy or not. I've asked you twice in this thread and you've failed to answer.

You have the right to pray. You have the right to pray wherever you want, even during school. You do not have the right to tell my child that he needs to be part of your prayer or to have to sit through it.

You don't want teachers encouraging kids to be gay or transition genders. I'm good with that. I don't want teachers encouraging kids to pray, follow God, be religious, or follow Christianity. You okay with that?

I don't care if you don't want to sell cakes to the gays. I never said you should have to. You keep brining it up to me despite that fact.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

yeah, it's really just allowing children to experience and learn about the world as it is rather than censor things from them. It's troubling hearing people accuse teachers and other adults of being groomers simply for being honest with children about things like this (without being explicit in any way).

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

If you can't tell the difference between a local cake shop with lots of competitors and the only major search engine with monopoly power I'm not sure I can offer a sufficient explanation.

---

I'm not sure you understand how laws work. And it won't be democrats who will be more strongly in your way of breaking up monopolies.

Again, I asked what proposal you are looking for that doesn't offer you special treatment? Do you have anything whatsoever to offer besides victimhood?

---

Quote:

---

Here is an example. . . . Great Expectations is a classic book with a complex story line which includes the main character falling in love with a girl. There is no explicit material. No sex. Nothing profane. If this exact book were written with Pip and Esteban instead of Pip and Estella, would it be 'teaching sexuality'? Would it then be not appropriate? If your answer is no, then I think we are on the same page.

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have not promoted public accommodation laws. Or said schools should encourage transitioning children. I have not asked for my views to have privilege.

I am frustrated. . . Your entire posts are strawman arguments. Like I said, you are not engaging my posts. You are projecting far left ideologies onto me and engaging those ideas. When you stop doing that, we can talk.

---

Kurt tell me where my ability to practice my belief publicly stops. Give me a concrete example instead of an abstract. We live in the real world and inhabit physical places, not just metaphysical constructs. I'm trying to provide these but you're running away and calling them strawmen.

---

Sure. You are entitled to practice a belief that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. You may practice this life style publicly in your life. I disagree with efforts to inflict limitations of marriage arrangements on others based on your beliefs. I actually don't know if you are against legalized polygamy or not. I've asked you twice in this thread and you've failed to answer.

You have the right to pray. You have the right to pray wherever you want, even during school. You do not have the right to tell my child that he needs to be part of your prayer or to have to sit through it.

You don't want teachers encouraging kids to be gay or transition genders. I'm good with that. I don't want teachers encouraging kids to pray, follow God, be religious, or follow Christianity. You okay with that?

I don't care if you don't want to sell cakes to the gays. I never said you should have to. You keep brining it up to me despite that fact.

---

This is all low hanging fruit and rarely the front we're discussing here.

Tell me what should happen if I don't use someone's preferred pronouns - should I be fired? Or if I don't affirm my child's gender (can Virginia and California strip my parental rights?). Can I say things someone finds offensive (that would be called denying someone's right to exist)? Do I really have equality if I have no avenue to pursue work without being able to practice these things (major companies won't hire me, to which the f16 left says to start my own google or Toyota). These are the fronts that this is now taking on. Can my kids in public school do the same? At universities? What about PayPal cutting me off for their own definition of hate speech? Or closing my bank account? Do you really think a society where my right to practice means total exclusion is the same as what you're positing?

Edit: forgot to ask if my kids can have sex exclusive restrooms and locker rooms.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have not promoted public accommodation laws. Or said schools should encourage transitioning children. I have not asked for my views to have privilege.

I am frustrated. . . Your entire posts are strawman arguments. Like I said, you are not engaging my posts. You are projecting far left ideologies onto me and engaging those ideas. When you stop doing that, we can talk.

---

Kurt tell me where my ability to practice my belief publicly stops. Give me a concrete example instead of an abstract. We live in the real world and inhabit physical places, not just metaphysical constructs. I'm trying to provide these but you're running away and calling them strawmen.

---

Sure. You are entitled to practice a belief that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. You may practice this life style publicly in your life. I disagree with efforts to inflict limitations of marriage arrangements on others based on your beliefs. I actually don't know if you are against legalized polygamy or not. I've asked you twice in this thread and you've failed to answer.

You have the right to pray. You have the right to pray wherever you want, even during school. You do not have the right to tell my child that he needs to be part of your prayer or to have to sit through it.

You don't want teachers encouraging kids to be gay or transition genders. I'm good with that. I don't want teachers encouraging kids to pray, follow God, be religious, or follow Christianity. You okay with that?

I don't care if you don't want to sell cakes to the gays. I never said you should have to. You keep brining it up to me despite that fact.

---

This is all low hanging fruit and rarely the front we're discussing here.

Tell me what should happen if I don't use someone's preferred pronouns - should I be fired? Or if I don't affirm my child's gender (can Virginia and California strip my parental rights?). Can I say things someone finds offensive (that would be called denying someone's right to exist)? Do I really have equality if I have no avenue to pursue work without being able to practice these things (major companies won't hire me, to which the f16 left says to start my own google or Toyota). These are the fronts that this is now taking on. Can my kids in public school do the same? At universities? What about PayPal cutting me off for their own definition of hate speech? Or closing my bank account? Do you really think a society where my right to practice means total exclusion is the same as what you're positing?

Edit: forgot to ask if my kids can have sex exclusive restrooms and locker rooms.

---

You are really going to make me ask a fourth time aren't you?

---

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is an example. . . . Great Expectations is a classic book with a complex story line which includes the main character falling in love with a girl. There is no explicit material. No sex. Nothing profane. If this exact book were written with Pip and Esteban instead of Pip and Estella, would it be 'teaching sexuality'? Would it then be not appropriate? If your answer is no, then I think we are on the same page.

---

I haven't read the book however in the Pip and Esteban example it would be teaching a world view about sexuality that I personally would not want taught in a public classroom. There are other relational options as well that I would not want presented in a classroom.

The question "would it not be appropriate" implies a standard of appropriateness. Who sets that standard when you and I disagree?

---

AGC said:

---

How am I victimizing people with my practice?

---

Quote:

---

What right do people have to my labor or my speech?

---

Quote:

---

Surely someone else can make said cake.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately google denying space is totally different: it is non-existence. This rationale does hold up in court: it's monopoly / oligopoly power and laughable to contest.

---

Quote:

---

You have yet to demonstrate a meaningful injury that creates a victim.

---

Quote:

---

But please answer the rest of my questions: is not calling someone by their pronoun creating a victim? Where does their right to force others to acquiesce to their reality come from? I put a lot up there for current battles and all you singled out was my 'create your own google'.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I want to know because I want to understand your position. I can't understand your position if you won't answer simple ****ing questions.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

How am I victimizing people with my practice?

---

I don't know what your practice is.

Quote:

---

What right do people have to my labor or my speech?

---

What right do you have to be employed by whoever you want regardless of your speech? Again, with the hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Surely someone else can make said cake.

---

Again. be consistent. If someone else can make the cake then someone else can open a business that would otherwise serve you. And even with google there are alternatives you could work at.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately google denying space is totally different: it is non-existence. This rationale does hold up in court: it's monopoly / oligopoly power and laughable to contest.

---

What right to you have to google's employment? Where does it end, does google have to hire KKK radicals or Jihadists?

Quote:

---

You have yet to demonstrate a meaningful injury that creates a victim.

---

You want the right to exclude gays for being gay. Your only claim is that you want to limit this to small business I guess, but I dont' see how excluding service doesn't create victims. Sure in the case of a monopoly it's worse, but everything is worse in the case of a monopoly. That's really just a reason to not have monopiles, not a reason to change accommodation laws.

I asked you before if you were ok if HEB excluded Christians-you never answered. Should that be legal?

Quote:

---

But please answer the rest of my questions: is not calling someone by their pronoun creating a victim? Where does their right to force others to acquiesce to their reality come from? I put a lot up there for current battles and all you singled out was my 'create your own google'.

---

I singled that out because of the hypocrisy and lack of thoughtfulness or any suggestion of what the law should be. I asked too many times for you to state what law you propose to change here and you never did. I'll answer your questions when for the first time after who knows how many tries you answer mine.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Your grievance is having to serve gays.

HEB is almost never the only grocery available. What town is getting groceries at another store harder than buying a wedding cake at a different shop? Again what law are you suggesting. Why is this so hard for you to answer.

---

AGC said:

---

Assuming you're talking about polygamy it's an obvious no. I don't know how you can expect to understand my position though; you're not a modern anymore in the way you think and I'm closer to premodern. It's a gulf.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

I would just like to point out that "you do you and I'll do me" is quintessential liberalism and has nothing to do with conservatism.

The confusion stems from the fact that the only societies able to actually practice liberalism are conservative ones where people voluntarily practice righteousness without having to be forced into it by law. We mistake the cause for the effect, as if being out of jail is what makes a person good, not that good people don't need to be jailed

---

There are certainly no shortage of societies less conservative than the US with far lower incidents of crime and imprisonment.

Perhaps it's not social conservatism that allows liberalism.

---