ISIS Throwing gays from rooftop for being gay...

[RSGSRT]

*Graphic pics in link*

"On January 15, 2015, the Islamic State (ISIS) released a collection of images showing the enforcement of the hudud (Koranic punishment) in Ninawa, Iraq. The images show the execution of two men convicted of homosexuality by throwing them from a tall building; the crucifixion of two men convicted of armed theft; and the stoning of a woman convicted of adultery".


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/15...ath-sentences/

I think this presents a dilemma for the leftists in the US... Do they side with the gays? Or with Islam?

Either way, throwing a gay person to their death from a tall building isn't nearly as horrific as something the evil conservatives would do in America, like... uh.... refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding!! The monsters!!!!

The silence of the LGBT on Islam is deafening, yet predictable.

[Carbonfiberfoot]

...The silence of the LGBT on Islam is deafening, yet predictable.

This is one heck of a weird post that you've made. Were you expecting that particular community to take a collective public stance for any particular reason? Perhaps, like all groups, they are made up of people with differing political perspectives.

[Aerohead]

You're pretty fvcked up in the head if you DON'T have a problem with this. Why you're calling out the LGBT community is beyond my comprehension. Are they supposed to riot or something?

[RSGSRT]

You're pretty fvcked up in the head if you DON'T have a problem with this. Why you're calling out the LGBT community is beyond my comprehension. Are they supposed to riot or something?

Wtf?? You think I have nothing against islamonazis killing gays for simply being gay??

What I'm "calling them out" for is their support of the progressive left who treat any conservative like Hitler for thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Business owner not baking a cake for two gay men is pure evil and must be punished! Sharia law putting gay men to death is perfectly acceptable in the name of tolarence and freedom of religion.

Do I have that right?

[RSGSRT]

This is one heck of a weird post that you've made. Were you expecting that particular community to take a collective public stance for any particular reason? Perhaps, like all groups, they are made up of people with differing political perspectives.

The LGBT is, as far as the PR goes, far left. So yes, I'd expect something, though my expectations of the left doing anything good are very low so I'm not exactly surprised.

[Inactive]

Business owner not baking a cake for two gay men is pure evil and must be punished!

I find your earlier post somewhat disturbing on more than a couple of levels, but I am only going to comment on the above statement.

First thing is, when you own a business that serves the public, be it a restaurant, hardware store or bakery, you don't get to choose which customers you will serve and which you won't, the era of the "whites ONLY" restaurants with signs that say; "Only white customers will be served here," or the "help wanted" signs that said; "HELP WANTED, Irish need not apply."
"HELP WANTED, women need not apply."

Same for the "Whites only" drinking fountains, restrooms and entryways, that and the; "coloreds must use the back service entrance" signs are long past!

With civil rights, all of that is changed and it is illegal to do those things, it is no more right or legal for that bakery to refuse to serve a paying gay customer who walks through the door than it is for them to put a sign up that says; "Only WHITES will be served here" or; "Only tithe paying christians allowed."

Frankly I find it disgusting that this is even an issue in 2015 any more, the Jim Crowe era was dead long ago, so are the "Colored" entrances, restrooms and fountains out back.

With that being said, conversely I don't know why the fk these idiots even want to get a wedding cake made by an openly, obviously hostile business in the first place! Why would anyone even want to eat a cake made by such a bakery behind closed doors, you have no idea what they might have dumped in the pan just to get revenge or because the owner is angry- spit, pee, floor sweepings, "Dumplings" fresh from the toilet bowl?

The last place you want to get food from is a business, cook or server who is openly hostile to you!
Me, I'd walk out and take my money with me and go to another bakery who does want my business, and my money, and is happy to serve me as a paying customer, and I'd tell all my friends and everyone else how great this other store or business was and how lousy the first one was to me.

[Max K]

I think this presents a dilemma for the leftists in the US... Do they side with the gays? Or with Islam?

I don't think this presents a dilemma for leftists, because they have a different understanding of Islam. In their view, if anything bad happens, it cannot be Islam, it is always something else, like "violent extremism", or "tribal unrest", or "political fallout from xyz". Because Islam is all about [insert leftist values here: tolerance, equality for women, religious pluralism, etc].

But isn't the left curious about Islam? Not at all. They have people who build and maintain the left's narrative about Islam, that's all they want. People like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, or Reza Aslan, or Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation, or Professor John Esposito.

Such people might say that this execution of a woman on the street has nothing to do with Islam (I don't speak Arabic, but I believe this execution is based in sharia law):

http://vid528.photobucket.com/albums...pslebnzzgg.mp4

[Inactive]

What I'm "calling them out" for is their support of the progressive left who treat any conservative like Hitler for thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman.

One last thought before I run to the store...

Like it or not, marriage comes under civil contract law, it's a contract between legal age adults, it has nothing to do with the church or religion. That is why you pay for the marriage license (and getting a required blood test done) by going to City Hall and paying the state the fee, you don't get a license from a church or pay a church the fee for a marriage license, it's issued by the state, not the Vatican.
You don't even need a church for a ceremony, it can be done right there at City Hall if so desired.

[Rudy8116]

Don't forget, if you're not for gay marriage, you're a homophob. I don't recall seeing anyone thrown from a tall building here...

[JasperST]

I find your earlier post somewhat disturbing on more than a couple of levels, but I am only going to comment on the above statement.

First thing is, when you own a business that serves the public, be it a restaurant, hardware store or bakery, you don't get to choose which customers you will serve

Huh? I do it every effin' day, for 28 years now. Open to the public does not mean publicly owned. I turned down Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help promote abortions. So sue me. You pay my bills then you can dictate who I do business with.

The bakery stuff is government over reach and forcing lifestyles onto people that don't want the association, even to the degree of religious freedoms, our founders would roll over in the grave.

The thread is about the hypocritical tolerance liberals have with Islam but while having zero tolerance for the rest of us. Would they force a Muslim to make a pork pie? Or a Jew to make a Adolf Hitler statue?

[JasperST]

One last thought before I run to the store...

Like it or not, marriage comes under civil contract law, it's a contract between legal age adults, it has nothing to do with the church or religion. That is why you pay for the marriage license (and getting a required blood test done) by going to City Hall and paying the state the fee, you don't get a license from a church or pay a church the fee for a marriage license, it's issued by the state, not the Vatican.
You don't even need a church for a ceremony, it can be done right there at City Hall if so desired.

Yes but you forgot about the government for the people by the people thingy.

I'm all for a state defining marriages however they want but that right has been over ridden by judges in many cases. Politically correct judges. Why not polygamy if people can decide? Who says it has to be only two people if we are going to throw out traditional marriage?

[Inactive]

Yes but you forgot about the government for the people by the people thingy.

I'm all for a state defining marriages however they want but that right has been over ridden by judges in many cases. Politically correct judges. Why not polygamy if people can decide? Who says it has to be only two people if we are going to throw out traditional marriage?

I have not seen anything overridden by judges, the judges in question have to rule by the US Constitution and the laws, they have ruled on the issue of equal protection under the law and have said the state(s) 39 now is it? cannot descriminate on the marriage issue. A key statement is in bold below this description:

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is the "equal application" of the laws.
By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

Separate is not equal, which is why we no longer have schools for "coloreds" "whites only" washrooms, or require that blacks sit at the back of the bus no matter how nice the school, washroom or bus might be, or that they might be 100% identical to the white shool, washroom or bus, that is why "civil union" doesn't fly. "Civil union" is the "colored washroom" to marriage.

Huh? I do it every effin' day, for 28 years now. Open to the public does not mean publicly owned.

Best check the state laws I guess, it might only be a matter of time before someone does file a complaint or suit like they did with the bakery.

The bakery stuff is government over reach and forcing lifestyles onto people that don't want the association,

How silly, they could have just baked the cake, collected the money for it and be done with it, it's not like they would have to do the marriage ceremony or take nude wedding photos, it's a freaking cake!

The thread is about the hypocritical tolerance liberals have with Islam but while having zero tolerance for the rest of us.

Wow, "liberals" who are these so called "liberals" you painted there with your broad brush like it's a word grandma would wash your mouth out with soap for? You are aware that the term is not night and day, a person can be a social liberal and a fiscal/govt conservative, or vice- versa, or any number of combinations. Instead of slamming all so called "liberals" like slamming all black people, or someone slamming all cops as bad apples- you might specify who is doing what you say, name the persons, businesses, politicians or whomever they are and explain what exactly they do that has you going off the deep end on this!

Would they force a Muslim to make a pork pie? Or a Jew to make a Adolf Hitler statue?

"They" whom?

I'm all for a state defining marriages however they want but that right has been over ridden by judges in many cases. Politically correct judges.

How has anything been overridden? equal protection under the law and the Constitution look pretty clear to me, I don't find anything about this statement that raises any doubts or questions:

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated ariseswhen a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

Why is it difficult to understand the meaning of the underlined? clearly any judge worth their salt can read this and come to the same conclusions those "politically correct activist" judges have- that "the state" can't grant rights to one particular class or people, yet deny it to others.

Why not polygamy if people can decide? Who says it has to be only two people if we are going to throw out traditional marriage?

Polygamy was legal in Utah originally, even practiced by the Mormons back in the 1800s, as far as I'm concerned if they are all consenting adults and if they want to spend all that money on marriage licenses it's a little cash windfall for the state coffers for the fees, it's none of my business, it doesn't affect me and I don't care.
Given the fact marriage has a 50% failure rate on average within about 5 years of marriage, clearly it has problems already built-in for a long time now as the sheer number of divorces every year prove.

According to the CDC:

• Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
• Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

[Aerohead]

What the hell does equal rights under the law have to do with right or left??

This whole gay marriage debate is God damn ridiculous. 2 consenting, non-related adults should be able to be married under the law. Period. 2 gay people getting married has absolutely ZERO effect on anyone else. Get over it.

ETA: Last time I checked, sexual orientation is a protected class, so you better have a damn good reason other than a couple being gay to refuse service to them, as it should be.

Bunch of fvcking bigots on this forum.

[CCCSD]

Wow. You guys derailed the thread. You failed to understand his point, and let your umbrage go all out.
WHERE IS the outcry?

[PtownVAMike]

Wow. You guys derailed the thread. You failed to understand his point, and let your umbrage go all out.
WHERE IS the outcry?

I'm with you on this one.

I believe that marriage is (and should be) between a man and a woman. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it.

(Oh and if this thread gets nuked, at least SOMEONE would've seen this post.)