espn-double standard much??

[Aughnanure]

In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot.  

Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue.  The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly.  On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with.  Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade.  If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.

big·ot [big-uht]: the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Not. That. Hard. Oh, and don't go down the rabbit hole of a "you're a bigot because you called someone a bigot,"...cause I know you will smh.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh. Dear. God. I won't even need to get into the fact that you don't what the f*** you're talking about on birth control. But let me say this. Your hospital is not a church. In many areas it is the ONLY hospital available and the only place for nurses and doctors. It is a place of work. If a religion wants to supply a service to a community, they cannot just make-up rules that go against the legal and medical rights of those they are serving. This is part of being a freaking hospital.

And christ you are ignorant. Birth control is a vital part female healthcare and denying access to a key part of your body's healthcare is denying rights. A woman's reproductive organs are a ridiculously important part of her overall healthcare. But you know better because your sexist religion which denies female viewpoints and participation said so? What's next for you? Denying blood transfusions is okay because they go against some religion?

Lastly, I cannot help but mock your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of how healthcare insurance works. For god's sake, they're not being forced to give it to them personally.

This is a classic response and exactly what I have been talking about this entire thread.  Their views of what they should be providing as a Christian hospital don't count.  You couldn't have displayed it any better.  Their moral views, their religious views are trumped.  Then you throw in the "sexist religion" remark, tolerance abounds.  Don't forget redneck next time...usually a favorite of the highly tolerant.  LOL.

I think it would be wise to go back read how the most current law came to pass and what fixes had to be put in to prevent the very thing you are talking about, otherwise "for God's sake" it would have happened.  That was the intent, smarter people were able to cut it off at the pass, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming in the future.

There's a reason why a number of private hospitals have sued based on the current law, they don't arrive at the same conclusion you do.  Then again, they're just a bunch of bumbling people that believe the world started 6,000 years ago and sexist, redneck, Jesus freaks (oh, and Homophobes, too). 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Quick recap on what the Bible says traditional marriage is.  

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OFkeKKszXTw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fail.  Try again. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well quite frankly if someone is picking and choosing from their religion particularly the intolerant parts instead of say "love thy neighbor" then why should they be repaid with tolerance? If a person used religious grounds to focus on say "love thy neighbor" I'm confident you'd get an entirely different reaction. 

Exactly the same argument against the tolerance brigade. EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT.

Think about it for a second.

[Galway Eagle]

Fail.  Try again. 

Modified

[ChicosBailBonds]

big·ot [big-uht]: the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Not. That. Hard. Oh, and don't go down the rabbit hole of a "you're a bigot because you called someone a bigot,"...cause I know you will smh.

I wouldn't go down that lame argument straw man you proposed, no need...even if you believe in your mind that I would...you're wrong.

I would suggest you look at the definition you provided and concentrate on some of the attributes toward the end of it.   Based on your very definition above around someone's religious views, and thus the irony in all of this.  You've outlined several times in this thread as have others about religion, or the views of others that are SOURCED in religion.  You've proved nicely what I've said all along about tolerance and bigotry.  Question is, can you use your definition above and apply it to your beliefs and words in this very thread to connect the dots and expose the hypocrisy?   My sense is, no....and the reason is simple as it has always been when it comes to tolerance and bigotry.  Those that scream from the rooftops how intolerant or bigoted others may be don't do a very good job of understand the very bigotry they espouse about others when doing it.  The very attributes in that definition that they don't like, they don't agree with and yet they use them to help define who is intolerant.

The irony is magically delicious.

[Aughnanure]

This is a classic response and exactly what I have been talking about this entire thread.  Their views of what they should be providing as a Christian hospital don't count.  You couldn't have displayed it any better.  Their moral views, their religious views are trumped.  Then you throw in the "sexist religion" remark, tolerance abounds.  Don't forget redneck next time...usually a favorite of the highly tolerant.  LOL.

I think it would be wise to go back read how the most current law came to pass and what fixes had to be put in to prevent the very thing you are talking about, otherwise "for God's sake" it would have happened.  That was the intent, smarter people were able to cut it off at the pass, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming in the future.

There's a reason why a number of private hospitals have sued based on the current law, they don't arrive at the same conclusion you do.  Then again, they're just a bunch of bumbling people that believe the world started 6,000 years ago and sexist, redneck, Jesus freaks (oh, and Homophobes, too). 

You're a hospital. Not a "Christian" hospital. You want all the legal tax breaks and profits from publicly-traded insurance companies and grants from the State and payments from public and private sector workers, then you act like a hospital that doesn't discriminate. Deal. Additionally, all these hospitals were providing birth control to employees way before this scary Obamacare started. It's amazing how many of them suddenly "object" to it now.

Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.

The problems with these "beliefs" is that they're factually incorrect. I don't need your opinions on facts.

Calling something sexist or racist does not make me "intolerant." You're literally arguing we should never point out when someone is a bigot because....the word sounds mean?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Modified

I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO.  Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours.  I look forward to watching, however.

[Aughnanure]

I wouldn't go down that lame argument straw man you proposed, no need...even if you believe in your mind that I would...you're wrong.

I would suggest you look at the definition you provided and concentrate on some of the attributes toward the end of it.   Based on your very definition above around someone's religious views, and thus the irony in all of this.  You've outlined several times in this thread as have others about religion, or the views of others that are SOURCED in religion.  You've proved nicely what I've said all along about tolerance and bigotry.  Question is, can you use your definition above and apply it to your beliefs and words in this very thread to connect the dots and expose the hypocrisy?   My sense is, no....and the reason is simple as it has always been when it comes to tolerance and bigotry.  Those that scream from the rooftops how intolerant or bigoted others may be don't do a very good job of understand the very bigotry they espouse about others when doing it.  The very attributes in that definition that they don't like, they don't agree with and yet they use them to help define who is intolerant.

The irony is magically delicious.

God you're dense. When I'm talking about the "religions" I'm actually specifically talking about THEIR attitudes and treatments of other groups and people. "Views" are not groups.

[Galway Eagle]

Exactly the same argument against the tolerance brigade. EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT.

Think about it for a second.

Wait so your saying that because a group of people don't put up with views that treat others unfairly they aren't loving thy neighbor? I'm not sure I follow your logic.  I agree that people are wayyy to mean to your type of person and that only affirms views that treat others such as gays and women unfairly.  However, to say that because the "tolerance brigade" is fighting to allow homosexuals and women the same legal rights (not infringing on religion) as straight men is somehow intolerant I fail to see the logic in that regard.  Perhaps you can better explain it without catchy fox news terms so I don't get distracted?  

[Galway Eagle]

I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO.  Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours.  I look forward to watching, however.

Cool, my boss is mad at me for too much time on here so we'll head back to our corners and come out at the bell.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

God you're dense. When I'm talking about the "religions" I'm actually specifically talking about their attitudes and treatments of other groups and people. "Views" are not groups.

Yup, and those attitudes and treatments are religiously sourced.  Again, use your definition.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait so your saying that because a group of people don't put up with views that treat others unfairly they aren't loving thy neighbor? I'm not sure I follow your logic.  I agree that people are wayyy to mean to your type of person and that only affirms views that treat others such as gays and women unfairly.  However, to say that because the "tolerance brigade" is fighting to allow homosexuals and women the same legal rights (not infringing on religion) as straight men is somehow intolerant I fail to see the logic in that regard.  Perhaps you can better explain it without catchy fox news terms so I don't get distracted?  

The tolerance brigade on one front is fighting for those rights while at the same time showing intolerance to others that have differing viewpoints based on religion.  Yet, according to the very definition of tolerance, that shouldn't be happening. 

Sorry, the Fox News thing I don't get since I don't watch Fox News very often, but even right there you show your "tolerance" for people that may watch Fox News.  Again, the irony....it just keeps on giving.  You don't like views from Fox News or people that espouse them, thus you are not tolerant of those views.  Magically.  Delicious. 

[Aughnanure]

Yup, and those attitudes and treatments are religiously sourced.  Again, use your definition.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

LOL

Please tell me how I have treated Christians (as a Catholic my whole life) in a discriminatory manner. Please.

Your "treatments" of other people are not protected because they are "religiously sourced." This is how it became religiously acceptable to defend slavery and keep interracial marriage illegal.

Do you see the difference? Keeping people as slaves vs. the opinion that that is terrible. One is actually affecting someone.

[MU82]

Deflection might be yours.  Or, you could answer the question.

I don't like going back-and-forth about hypothetical situations.

You love the whole "If Vander doesn't hit that shot and we lose to Davidson ... " discussion. I happen to dislike it, because he did hit the shot and we didn't lose so discussing the repercussions of what would have happened had what happened not happened is just a waste of time.

The same is true of the question you asked me in this discussion, too. I'm not interested in debating a non-happening.

I'm not "against" you, Chicos. And I don't know you well enough to either like or dislike you. You're just a knucklehead on a fan site - as am I!

I disagree with you sometimes and agree with you sometimes. You and I have different politics (I am a registered Independent) and different religions (I am a non-practicing Jew), so we naturally will disagree on many topics, especially those that stray from the basketball arena.

And you are very aggressive and confident when it comes to stating your points of view, so you tend to rehash things over and over and over again, and you rarely admit that it is even possible that there is a 1% chance that you just might be wrong. That also makes me less likely to want to continue a discussion.

Despite your sometimes abrasive style, I don't have you on "ignore" - only willie has that distinct honor with me - because you are a smart guy who often has thought-provoking comments, and I like that. But I defend my right to not be party to your hypotheticals or badgered by your politics! So there.

I look forward to future reasoned conversations, but I'm done with you on this debate.

Cheers!

[MU82]

Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.

Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.

My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!

And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.

[rocket surgeon]

In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything,  pre and post game prayers,  of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America,  you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?   

the short answer is....yup. check out wikipedia.  the very 2nd sentence states-"he received considerable press attention for his public displays of...wait for it...RELIGIOUS FAITH..."  then the side story was that as a heisman trophy winner, a very successful college career and a 1st round nfl pick(25th), he struggled in the nfl and to be very honest with you, i don't know where he is with regards to football.  wikepedia isn't really known for a right wing bias.  as a matter of fact, many articles have been written on wikipedia being a little left leaning at times  

[Lennys Tap]

In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot. 

Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue.  The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly.  On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with.  Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade.  If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.

Let me get this straight. You're tolerant because you don't call something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck a duck unless the duck says it's ok to call him a duck. I don't wait for the duck's permission, so I'm intolerant. Fine, but the misogyny that some Muslims practice "based on their religious viewpoints" and the homophobia that some Muslims and Christians practice "based on their religious viewpoints" aren't any more acceptable to me than they would be if it was based on atheistic or totalitarian viewpoints. In your "tolerant" world, Sharia Law would be legitimate, something to be tolerated. No thanks.

[Aughnanure]

Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.

My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!

And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.

It was a response to Chicos, on a specific comment. Of course all the Abrahamic religions are exceedingly sexist.

[Spotcheck Billy]

what was this thread about again?

[rocket surgeon]

I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO.  Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours.  I look forward to watching, however.

you are connected to "the big bang theory"?  that is the only sit-com i really watch next to "the league" and maybe come seinfeld reruns.  but but but...that's cool!  the character development is f'ing unbelievably genius and 2nd to not many

[Aughnanure]

what was this thread about again?

Rabble Rabble?

[ttheisen]

what was this thread about again?

What % of the threads could this be posted in?  10%?  60%?  90%?

[rocket surgeon]

what was this thread about again?

so what, this is incredibly enlightening and entertaining  let's just say it has evolved

[shiloh26]

what was this thread about again?

Given the original subject matter of the thread, it stayed on the rails for far longer than I expected!