sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
As for the woman whose business is suffering, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy or empathy for her.
I'm neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic for this particular business owner. I'm more concerned about the question of personal liberty. If there's a store owner who wants to refuse service to someone then let them do so and let customers decide if they want to do business with such a person.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
You are looking at it the wrong way round.
Why?
Why is this woman's personal choice any less important than the personal choice of her customer? I don't see anything about her imposing her personal choice on an employee, or anyone else. She didn't attempt to interfere with the choice of the couple to get married, so why should anyone interfere with her choice about who she wants to provide her personal services to?
Sometimes an example is needed and people need some punishment if they commit a crime.
I don't think what this woman did was criminal. She was sued in civil court.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Replace gay couple with:
Hispanic couple
Fat couple
Jewish couple
Handicapped couple
African-American couple
Atheist couple
Okay. I replaced it. I have this:
Person A does not want to provide her services to Person B.
Label each of these as you want, the shop owner was not demanding anything of an employee, it is her individual liberty and the individual liberty of the couple. Why is this not best settled by consumer choice? The individual shop owner was not trying to interfere with the business of the couple. Why should they interfere with her business?
It seems we can have a Ms. [name your race/nationality/gender] Character Contest but we can't let a shop owner kill their own business by refusing service as an individual liberty. I say let the shop owner go about his or her business and let customers decide if they want to frequent the establishment. Or, are we trying to kill this woman's business in order to teach society a lesson? It's a bit paternalistic to me.
ajwrb now has a facebook page.
please follow along:.
https://www.facebook.com/ajwrb.
... but recently in internal correspondence, they've staunchly reiterated their stance...
What is the internal correspondence you speak of?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Laws protecting minorities, women, the disabled, religious people and the LGBT community from discrimination make us better humans, give us better communities, a better country and a better planet. But the right wing, the X-tian fundies and the Libertarians will cloak their beliefs behind a fence made of hate.
A few weeks ago I watched a news segment (can't recall the media outlet) about a service provider (a florist as I recall) whose business is threatened because she didn't want to supply her services to a gay couple for their wedding. Apparently the gay couple sued this woman. I asked myself why on earth was this gay couple ruining this woman's business when getting the flowers they wanted was as easy as going to the store next door? Honestly, leveraging law like this seems like hate to me. "And for what? More cows?" We are talking about flowers, and this woman's hard-built business is threatened with ruin over that?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Here's what I don't understand: Why is Indiana singled-out and crapped on when the statutory language at issue is laced throughout state and federal books? It seems to me the powers of Indiana have, for good or bad, done no more than many other powers have before them (and from very diverse political interests!).
Is Indiana getting its knuckles rapped because it took its leadership longer to draw up and and pass legislation others adopted long before?
What am I missing here? What is so different about Indiana's recent legislation compared with other state laws (plus federal)?
does anyone remember those 2 songs and that movie specifically being mentioned in the watchtower?
they were"bad" and should be avoided.
it had to be in the late 70's or early80's.
return to jehovah... no return address .
today i read a small piece of poetic irony.
im not going to advertise from what web forum i read this, but it was so astounding i had to share it somewhere.
There was talk on this forum recently about rumor of some change in Watchtower's shunning policy. This rumor was circulating prior to the premature release of this brochure, but it makes me wonder if there's not something to the rumor.
On the other hand, in my experience the slightest change in Watchtower policy is often treated like miraculous manna from heaven (in other words: overblown) by the JW rumor-mill. Hence, assuming whatever is behind publication of the alleged brochure does represent a policy change, more than likely its fairly inconsequential accept in the mind of the hardcore Watchtower-worshiper who lives and breaths on crumbs falling from the table of their god.
return to jehovah... no return address .
today i read a small piece of poetic irony.
im not going to advertise from what web forum i read this, but it was so astounding i had to share it somewhere.
Return to Jehovah… No Return Address
Today I read a small piece of poetic irony. I’m not going to advertise from what web forum I read this, but it was so astounding I had to share it somewhere.
Apparently there was a brief mistake made by Watchtower loading
a brochure to its web site that is slated for release during the upcoming
summer conventions. It was available for a moment and then taken down.
The title is said to be Return to Jehovah.
One of the commenters had this to say:
“I know it's for our safety that we don't associate with disfellowshipped/disassociated ones, as much as it helps draw lost sheep back to the fold. But wouldn't it be cool if in the future we were allowed to send this brochure to such ones? I would love to be able to so, even if I couldn't put a return address! Just knowing Jehovah is calling his lost sheep home makes me teary eyed.” (Underlining added by Marvin Shilmer)
So we have a brochure titled Return to Jehovah and we have a commenter glad they can send a copy to someone even if they can’t include a return address.
For sure there is irony in that comment. But somewhere, somehow, there is poetry to be found too. Not necessarily the happy-ending kind, but poetry nevertheless.
By the way, there is something dark and sinister about someone finding themselves in a position of volunteering “wouldn't it be cool if in the future we were allowed to send this brochure to such ones?”
Sad as hell. Sad as hell. Sheeple being led to slaughter at the golden calf known as Watchtower.
judicial committee invitation comes, with be there or be square consequences.. ( come or we will df you ).
what are the sure fire, tested and true tactics that will keep the elders off your back?
( for good ).
I don't think I've ever heard of their sending you a letter for a JC, usually you'll get told verbally.
Believe it or not at one time Watchtower recommended elders issue written invitation to the judicial committee event rather than doing so verbally.
