GOP world. Burn notice.

[rubato]

You're still special in Georgia, scooter.

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football ... per/nqnyK/

‘Religious liberty’ bill jeopardizes Atlanta Super Bowl bid

" ...

If Georgia chooses to turn the “religious liberty” bill into law, be prepared: Atlanta may not get a Super Bowl.

That was the suggestion from the NFL on Friday when the league released a statement in response to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s question about whether the league had any position on Georgia House Bill 757.

The statement from league spokesman Brian McCarthy reads, “NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”

Falcons owner Arthur Blank has hoped to land multiple Super Bowls in the team’s new stadium, which is scheduled to open in 2017. The NFL has previously moved a Super Bowl from Arizona to the Rose Bowl near Los Angeles in the 1992 season after that state refused to recognize the Martin Luther King holiday.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regi ... ill/nqpz9/

The only three openly gay members of the Georgia Legislature appealed Monday for Gov. Nathan Deal to veto a controversial “religious liberty” bill, saying they believe the state has already lost face over concerns the legislation would legalize discrimination statewide.

“Freedom of religion is an American value, it allows all of us to believe as we see fit,” said state Rep. Karla Drenner, D-Avondale Estates, who gave an emotional floor speech last week against House Bill 757, which she said would make her a second-class citizen. But, she added, “it does not allow us to use religion to harm or take away from others.”

State Reps. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), Keisha Waites (D-Atlanta), Taylor Bennett (D - Brookhaven) and Park Cannon (D-Atlanta) held a press conference in response to the passage of House Bill 757, a “religious liberty” bill they said was discriminatory. BOB ANDRES / BANDRES@AJC.COM

Drenner was joined by state Reps. Keisha Waites, D-Atlanta, and Park Cannon, D-Atlanta, — the Legislature’s two other openly gay lawmakers — as well as state Rep. Taylor Bennett, D-Brookhaven, whose mother is gay, and state Rep. Dee Dawkins-Haigler, D-Lithonia, chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus.

“I ask myself, what would Jesus do?” said Dawkins-Haigler, who is a minister. “Whatever we do unto the least of these, we do unto him. What is right is to not discriminate because of someone’s sexual orientation.”

yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

well , your post was very funny, scooter. it also was revealingly true, as to how you think......

you are better!

you are brighter!

you are napoleon!!!!!

[Scooter]

I would hope that everyone believes they are special. You don't believe that you are special, wes? You aren't raising your daughter to believe that she is special. Passing your low self-esteem on to her isn't likely to serve her well. It certainly explains a lot about you.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“Whatever we do unto the least of these, we do unto him. What is right is to not discriminate because of someone’s sexual orientation.”

I'm not sure I agree with this minister that homosexuals are "the least of these". That seems to be a value judgement too far, does it not? Jesus was declaring that his followers would humble themselves to help the worst and lowest members of society as opposed to palling around with the "best" or "highest". I have never thought that homosexuals were the worst and lowest etc.

[Crackpot]

I think the saying applies to anyone viewed as "less". It applies to the listeners own prejudice.

[wesw]

well scoot...., I thought I was oh so special for many years....

I m much happier now that I realize that I m just a cog in the gear that turns the wheel of life.....

hopefully I will instill a slightly less narcissistic view into my children, especially my daughter, since she is so much like me.... hopefully she will learn much sooner than I did.

[Big RR]

I have never thought that homosexuals were the worst and lowest etc.

I agree meade, but then there are many, even among christians, who would disagree--Crackpot has it right. In any event, I would think jesus would embrace homosexuals and apply that statement to them and how they are treated.

[MajGenl.Meade]

All that may be so, but my point was rather about the minister's identification of homosexuals as "the least". Of course on the main level, Jesus had equal room in his heart for all sinners (i.e. all people without exception, since all have sinned) and so should we.

At the time, the least of his people were almost surely those who were orphans, widows, beggars, the crippled, prisoners, the poor, the sick - the identified disadvantaged of society. They may have been ignored because of prejudice, fear, habit and ignorance amongst other reasons. James warned against bringing the rich and well-regarded to the front of the meeting while dismissing the dirty to a place at the back, out of sight. Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man is aimed at the exact same point.

In this day and age I don't think that homosexuals as a class of being are generally disadvantaged in those same ways. (This is not at all to deny that individual people may be so). Therefore I am a little leery of the minister categorizing such persons as "the least". It seems to me equally prejudicial - or perhaps just a little disrespectful.

[Big RR]

I see your point Meade, the "least" at that time probably were primarily the dirty, the diseased, the impoverished, but then Jesus also did include the "others" excluded from "polite" society--the tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans (a whole parable was devoted to these "horrible" people). Homosexuals may well not be economically disadvantaged anymore so than non homosexuals (although I honestly don't know), but to many (including those who champion "religious liberty" laws) they are the "others" that must be excluded. The others that cannot get ordinary business services (from the baking of a wedding cake to the rental of a hall, etc.) because some do not "approve" of them or what they do. And IMHO this clearly places them among the least. Face it, when Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, he chose the Samaritan to be the good guy because people of those times would not even imagine such horrible people could be "good"--so he used him as a symbol of the worst of the "others", and showed that he/they is/are capable of great mercy and charity; might it have been "the good homosexual" if it were told today?

Thus, I maintain including homosexuals among "the least" makes sense and is in no way disrespectful. It is just pointing out a fact of how some view them.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The others that cannot get ordinary business services (from the baking of a wedding cake to the rental of a hall, etc.) because some do not "approve" of them or what they do

Good points. But re the above, is that really the general case? I am surely aware that there are a few people who decorate cakes or rent halls who (claiming faith) desire not to provide service to homosexuals. But is it the case that legions of homosexuals are unable to get a cake decorated or a hall booked?

Is it the norm that person A who couldn't get person B to rent a hall is also unable to find persons C D E F G etc. who are only too happy to accommodate the enquirer? I think that those willing to provide far outnumber those who are not.

I tend to think it's a storm in a teacup, a molehill rather than a mountain. But these "religious freedom" laws must indeed be very closely examined so that they are not blanket endorsements of persecution.

(Also, the Samaritan/Jew thing is a religious dispute equally fought by both sides - Jesus could have told the same story to Samaritans with a Jew as the hero. I don't think it possible to equate homosexual with Samaritan in this "least" context).

[Big RR]

But re the above, is that really the general case?

you tell me; I can see no other reason for trying to pass "religious liberty" laws than to permit business owners to discriminate as to who they will serve.

Also, the Samaritan/Jew thing is a religious dispute equally fought by both sides - Jesus could have told the same story to Samaritans with a Jew as the hero. I don't think it possible to equate homosexual with Samaritan in this "least" context

if that is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), I think it further illustrates that people of that time (as well as now) might well have seen the "other" as included among the least.

[Scooter]

Man who threw boiling water over gay couple will face FBI hate crime investigation

A man who threw boiling water over a sleeping gay couple will face a federal hate crime investigation – as the state has no hate crime laws.

Georgia couple Anthony Gooden, 23, and Marquez Tolbert, 21 were left with horrific burns after the incident on February 12.

48-year-old Martin Luther Blackwell – who was dating Mr Gooden’s mother – allegedly threw boiling water over the pair while they were sleeping because of their sexuality.

Mr Tolbert was hospitalised for ten days after the attack, while Mr Gooden was only released from hospital five weeks later. Both were left with horrific burns over their bodies and have suffered immense pain.

Blackwell allegedly admitted that he carried out the attack because he didn’t like the idea of the two men sleeping together – but as Georgia does not have LGBT hate crime laws, he was charged with two counts of aggravated battery.

However, this week the FBI opened a federal investigation into the incident – which means Blackwell could face federal hate crime charges despite the lack of state anti-gay laws.

wes believes this could just as easily have been him because he's voting for Trump. Uh, sorry wes, but no, it wouldn't.

[wesw]

no lyin' 'cooter, that could have been me if I had pissed THAT guy off.

I thought cruz was a liar, as he distorts everything trump says, but over the last few days you have taken his lyin' tiara.

lyin' 'cooter.... or maybe lyin' Lucifer is better suited to you.... lyin' lucy, for short....

lyin' lucy....

[Scooter]

These poor guys were just lying there in bed, asleep, which is what set him off and why he the opportunity to throw boiling water on them. Would he have thrown boiling water on you just for lying in bed, asleep? No, he wouldn't. As much as you enjoy wallowing in your victimhood, this could NEVER have been you.

[wesw]

start calling people Nazis and who shows up, full of glee?

...lyin' lucy.

[wesw]

[wesw]

but Lucifer was not the only one there......

[wesw]

can you say transference, boys and girls?

lyin' lucy is wallowing in transference....

[Scooter]

Boys and girls, can you say "wesw has no fucking clue what transference means"

[Sue U]

"wesw has no fucking clue."

FTFY.