The Anti-Semitism on minds.com

[Bings]

I understand your distinction, but it doesn't apply when comparing a private corporation and a private religious organization, many of which have incorporated to satisfy legal or financial requirements.

I am still not entirely sure but if you are asking me if i think private organisations should be treated the same whether they are religious or not, they yeah I do.

Also, redemption is "a thing" over here with most Christian religions. As I said before, a church is a private organization as well, and like FaceBook and Microsoft, and Google and YouTube and Twitter it has a "Code Of Conduct". If a church is politically forced to admit as members people whose philosophy is 180 degrees out of line, as some on the Left are asserting, wanting to legislate, and suing to make happen, then so should the "private" corporations who also solicit members from the general public.

Churches teach their beliefs and rules of Faith before a person is accepted into the Faith and part of that acceptance in most Christian groups is baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, based on their repentance and confession of Faith that Jesus is the Son of God. It is not merely checking a box on a form or web page, although some "preachers" have reduced it to that in order to make collecting money from their "faithful" an easier job to do.

I don't get why someone who is 180 degrees out of line philosophically would want to legally force a church to let them be a member. I don't know the background of this, so I don't understand how it even came about.

[GreyGeek]

I am still not entirely sure but if you are asking me if i think private organisations should be treated the same whether they are religious or not, they yeah I do.

I could live with that. The seven "Protected Classes" give their members special rights and priviledges that ordinary citizens do not enjoy. First and foremost is the right to declare someone's actions a crime based on their personal feelings alone. And, I would agree with eliminating the tax exemption most religions enjoy, which would free them up to fully engage in the political process. Churches shouldn't be in the business of owning and running bra factories, for example. Right now, because they are tax exempt, preachers cannot make political speeches or inferences from the pulpit favoring a particular candidate, unless the speaker's name is "Rev" Jackson or "Rev" Al Sharpton, or Luis Farrakhan.

I don't get why someone who is 180 degrees out of line philosophically would want to legally force a church to let them be a member. I don't know the background of this, so I don't understand how it even came about.

I used to wonder, but I understand now. It's to punish them for disagreeing with the Left. That's why two Lesbians would pass up several bakeries which would have been more than happy to bake their wedding cake so that they could demand that a Christian baker do it, knowing he would refuse. They wanted to sue him out of business and that was their game plan and reason from the beginning. The baker lost in court, which means that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to him while he is running his business. You didn't know that once you cross the door into your own business you have to shed your Constitutional rights, did you? And, that doing that business gave you the right to suppress the rights of others? He is appealing the SCOTUS. The crux of his position is given in this article:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/m...rrow-we-all-do

A ruling against Phillips would force other faith-based organizations—from hospitals to adoption agencies to charities—to choose between their beliefs or shutting down their businesses.

Catholic Charities and other faith-based adoption services in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia were forced to close their doors because they believe that every child deserves both a mom and a dad. As a result, children were displaced from Catholic Charities to other agencies.

The Catholic groups contend that unless the court defends the First Amendment, these groups will no longer be able to care for the most vulnerable in our society. The neediest in our society will suffer most if they lose the public goods that people and organizations of faith provide.

Several States are attacking Christian bakers, and in most cases the baker is forced out of business due to heavy fines and threats of prison. (Should Facebook or YT or Twitter be threatened with heavy fines and imprisonment for restricting the free speech rights of Conservatives?) However, even when the State loses the court case they continue to persecute the Christian baker:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/l...lawyer-218003/

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, the law firm representing Miller, filed a motion last week in response to a likely appeal by the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

The Fund labeled the DFEH's litigation a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which is a term describing a suit meant to silence or censor an individual or group.

The Fund's motion seeks to use California Code of Civil Procedure's statute prohibiting SLAPP lawsuits, found in Section 425.16.

This SLAPP lawsuit is using public tax funds to continue punishing the baker for being politically incorrect.

Also, notice how inconsistent the courts across the land are. Judges are legislating from the bench more than ever before.

[Bings]

I don't know about bakers, if you own a shop then you accept you will have customers purchasing stuff off you that you don't agree with. If you hold a contentious view then there should be some obligation upon your person that you don't do a job where that view would put you in conflict with others like this. I used to work in a store, there was no get out clause for the muslims working there when they were asked to process alcohol or pork products. Do these Christian bakers apply the same objection to weddings of divorcees?

[GreyGeek]

I don't know about bakers, if you own a shop then you accept you will have customers purchasing stuff off you that you don't agree with. If you hold a contentious view then there should be some obligation upon your person that you don't do a job where that view would put you in conflict with others like this. I used to work in a store, there was no get out clause for the muslims working there when they were asked to process alcohol or pork products. Do these Christian bakers apply the same objection to weddings of divorcees?

The point of this discussion was that FB, Goog, YT and Twit (all operated by Leftist) block non-Leftists from posting msgs which don't support Leftist "theology". IF "privately owned" (that was the thrust of your argument) Christian corporations can not block service to those who deliberate attack their business on philosophical grounds then neither should FB, G, YT or T be allowed to block Conservative postings. IOW, a level playing field.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The big difference on this forum is that neither you nor I will be blocked or our account canceled.

[jlittle]

... We'll just have to agree to disagree...

Well, we agree on that. I'd just like to make it plain that I disagree.

I consider myself conservative (with a small c) but regard a lot of your views as expressed in this discussion decidedly not. IMO some are far right, and some beyond that into "conspiracy theories" comparable to flat-earthers and moon hoaxers.

Regards, John Little

[GreyGeek]

(Ya, I argue against flat earthers, moon hoax folks and over-unity gurus as well, along with folks who think that as long as they have free speech rights those same rights don't extend to folks who disagree with them.)

I think we are done here.

[Bings]

The point of this discussion was that FB, Goog, YT and Twit (all operated by Leftist) block non-Leftists from posting msgs which don't support Leftist "theology". IF "privately owned" (that was the thrust of your argument) Christian corporations can not block service to those who deliberate attack their business on philosophical grounds then neither should FB, G, YT or T be allowed to block Conservative postings. IOW, a level playing field.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The big difference on this forum is that neither you nor I will be blocked or our account canceled.

Your comparison doesn't make sense to me though. I'm not sure what I am disagreeing on. I don't agree with the four websites actions (or in Facebook's case, their entire existence) but I think they should be allowed to do so and I understand why they do. Whenever a user types something on a website, it's still the website of the owner and the owner should be able to control what goes on the website. The baker thing, I can't see how it's about free speech. Once someone pays for a cake, they can do what they like with it and refusing to sell a cake to someone because you don't like what they are going to do with it, when it is theirs is nothing about free speech.

[woodsmoke]

It is amazing to me...

i am older than dirt...

I can remember when "this side" used to point at "that side" and say that "that side" was "anti-semite"...

and now...the roles are EXACTLY reversed...

only with...new words...

new words which purport to be "the same word"...because it is SHOUTED that "this word is that word"...

but it is not...

the shoes...of Jews...killed..gassed...forgotten...by the people who...in the sixties ...purported to be NON-anti-semitic...

MY dad,... a belly gunner in a B-17... landed in Germany and CARRIED IN HIS ARMS...people who STANK of their own filth...to the plane... OUT OF THE

DENIED NOW ...camps...

because of people who have co-opted... the word "facist";...

he CARRIED IN HIS ARMS...women and men...nude...covered in their own filth...weighing less than a child...

on to that bomber...Rosie's Riveters..."Rosenthal", not the woman...

and flew them back to the U.K...

he would bench slap the people today who are "anti-fa"...



and be reviled by the elites and threatened with jail time...

woodaaarrrgggghhhhsmoke