bullets13

Does the fact that does occasionally grow antlers add any validity to the opposing argument?

Obama does not need to talk about the woman killed in San Francisco. He also had no business getting involved with Trayvon, Gardener, or Mike Brown. Presidents should not be dishing out hot takes on crimes, PARTICULARLY without any details being available. That being said, apart from politicizing it (which all presidents do when a major incident occurs), I can't criticize him for showing up after the SC church shooting. A president should be visible after events like that. I just find it unfortunate that he did not provide the same presence after several other similar tragedies in the past several years.

To appease the masses. This incident was misrepresented in the media and caused outrage that wasn't deserved. I'm assuming that the city is trying to avoid more.

Excellent stuff.

Crazy. I can't remember the last time we had an alligator attack around here, and then we have two in a week.

It all comes down to whether or not you feel that gay is genetic or a choice. I've talked to dozens of people who've said "I was -- years old and knew I was different. I wasn't attracted to the opposite sex." I've never heard of anyone who said "I was 11 years old, and knew I wanted to have 3 wives."

Actually, this thread is about a hardware store owner who has posted a sign that no gays are allowed in his store. I can actually understand where the cake shop owner is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. The same goes for churches. A church should not have to wed them if they don't want to. This case is a little different.

I heard they also arrested one of his posse. Dude goes by the name Mo Lester.

I would make that distinction. Not sure I'd make one between gays and people having sex out of wedlock, though. It's also worth noting that he didn't ban child molesters ;)

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business? Gay customers go to EVERY business. That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so. I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds. Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners.

Since he's a baptist preacher who doesn't want gays in his store because "what they're doing is wrong", shouldn't he also be banning divorcees, fornicators, liars, blasphemers, idolators, and all other manner of sinners from his store?

I don't support him either.

This could very well be the instance that brings it in front of the the SC for review, depending on how long it stays in the news and whether or not it brings about a lawsuit.

Your thoughts?

[Hidden Content]

I can if you're trying to pat the GOP's back for something that happened in the 1860s. With your political beliefs, you would've been a staunch democrat when each of the events that you're praising the GOP for perpetrating occurred.

Anyone not blinded by ideology.

It's accurate. What's not accurate is your historical knowledge. Between 1864 and 1920 the parties effectively switched platforms. Before that, republicans were big government and social rights, while democrats were for small government and anti-rights. Republicans and democrats of today bear little resemblance to the parties you're referencing.

If God can create someone like Millet Harrison, who's mental disabilities led him to eat his mom, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that someone could be born wired to be a bad person.

More compelling than the right's stance.

The same way you and I were born straight. Unless you had to make a choice? For me it never was. I hit a certain age, and I became attracted to girls. There was never even a consideration to do anything different. I couldn't make myself be attracted to man even if I tried.

I would assume so, but have had no firsthand conversations with a transgender. Having had dozens with homosexuals, I have much more information to offer an answer/speak for that group of people.

You're correct. In a society where we have laws to protect animals that are often as strict as those to protect humans, I'm just not real concerned about it.

Again, this is not a real story. And while I do remember our previous conversations on the subject, that is still a far cry from this (fake) article about someone claiming to have been raped by an animal.

I agree with you. Based on the interview with him, I think it was a case of poor judgement in trying to teach a lesson, rather than an attempt to politicize his classroom. That being said, you'll be held accountable for poor decisions when you're in a job as important as his.