Search results

On that we are agreed. Have a great day RileyG. :)

Yes. That is exactly the issue they suffer from. That is what causes their discomfort.

Not all cases. Certainly no one would claim being excluded from a torture dungeon is disrespectful. But most cases where someone wants to be somewhere but is excluded is disrespectful to them.

Of course you don't have to accept everything they do. But don't try to claim "They are just pretending" is respectful of an actual medical condition they suffer from. Nor is it respectful to assume a greater understanding of their issue then they posses. The sole point of my example was to...

Why should I have to pay for your kid to go to school?

Or saying "one nation under God"? Yes, I would agree forcing an action on my part would be an issue. However this is not forcing an action. This is allowing people in an area. Now we can certainly argue the merits on if allowing certain people in certain areas, but if I created a rule that...

Which you are entitled to. I'm just going to continue to point out it is not respectful. No one can force someone to accept an ideology. What they can do is enforce rules. That is not forcing acceptance. Society requires me to accord your religious belief a certain deference. That does not...

Oh, they all feel the same do they? Yes, as I said, simplistic and disrespectful.

Indeed. How could they feel disrespected when the almighty RilyG has determined they do not have a "real" issue and are "just pretending". Look, you are entitled to opinion but don't pretend that if someone came to you and said "RilyG, you are not A real Christian because XYZ" you would not...

Unless they are trans of course. Then you can disrespect them and make them uncomfortable and that is just fine, apparently.

Yes. The law firm of So, Poe, and Godwin.

Dang it! Missed it by that much.

I see. So in response to "threats against people" you believe the president should violate the Posse Comitatus Act? I'm seeing a pattern to your suggestions.

I see. So your response to "just like what happened in Germany in the 1930s." is to get rid of the first amendment?

That in no way shows "Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions,". Got anything resembling evidence or is this yet another bald faced assertion easily countered in reality?

Citation?

You do understand that accepting something and agreeing with it are two different things?

Nope. I explicitly said "Offer evidence". I guess that leaves us both not believing the other. Well, thank you for the clarity. That I can appreciate.