Has Christianity Become Intolerable?

In this country, every person had the right to use THEIR property as they wish - regardless of whether the courts agree. It is inherent in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments. It is not the people who must submit themselves to laws that violate their inherent rights, but lawmakers who must submit to the rights held by the people.

You don't think the KKK has a right to open a whites-only hotel. Does someone else have a right to open then a female-only establishment or a blacks-only institution? If some can discriminate, then on what logical basis can you exclude ANY from discriminating? You don't have top agree with them or use their property. You are free. But are THEY free when government can force them into associations?

Donjindra, trespass on my property, and you might see me skinny-dipping in my own pond. You cannot have me prosecuted for indecency, because the only way you'd be able to see me is if you were trespassing. I can use MY property the way I see fit. However, it seems that the government (now) has a say-so if I open my property to the public. If I allow people on the grounds, even if I post disclaimers, I have to maintain certain standards and cater to all people. Even ones like you. The obstinate, the pushy, the rude, the disrespectful, and the intolerant.

" trespass on my property, and you might see me skinny-dipping in my own pond. You cannot have me prosecuted for indecency, because the only way you'd be able to see me is if you were trespassing."

Yet "conservatives" cried foul when a "right to privacy" meant that homosexual sex was okay on ones own property. Nevertheless, you cannot grow certain controlled substances on your property even if they never leave it. And most "conservatives" back that sort of drug law.

Donjindra, if only homosexuals would stay out of sight like heterosexuals do when having sex. But they seem to want to flaunt it in our faces and demand not only tolerance but acceptance. And as to the growing of controlled substances, if only they WOULD not leave home when high. The problem arises when the munchies hit and the cupboards are bare, so they must venture out to seek food! If you could invent a locking mechanism that would only disengage when a difficult series of tasks were completed correctly in sequence...

Hey, otho. If it's your HOUSE and it's private property you're doing this on, you're right. But if you have a business that serves THE PUBLIC. That public should expect REASONABLE expectations of service. To have a religious test that same public cannot be aware of (no signage that warns of that), then no, you can't operate a public accommodation that way.
If people of certain religions won't serve EVERYONE who meets their religious criteria consistently, then that doesn't leave the public the option to refuse to enter their business. When you don't see any signs that say so, how is the public supposed to know?

Guess you never heard of Harwick vs. TX then, Otho. And the anti gay have a VERY strange definition of gay sex. I've seen anti gay people call 911 when they've seen a ss couple holding hands and pecking each other's cheek. Gay people have gotten murdered for that. There is an absolute zero tolerance and INVASION of the privacy of gay people for just existing. So your idea that ONLY gay people engage in public sex is a matter of hyperbole and hysteria, not the truth.

"Donjindra, if only homosexuals would stay out of sight like heterosexuals do when having sex. But they seem to want to flaunt it in our faces and demand not only tolerance but acceptance. And as to the growing of controlled substances, if only they WOULD not leave home when high."

I pretty much agree with you in both cases.

There's so much illogical thought going on here that you might want to change your moniker to "Doh2". Seriously. No one really minds liberals spewing nonsense, though the outright loathsome lies get VERY tiring, but at least be logical in your nonsense.

"There's so much illogical thought going on here"

Yet you don't bother pointing out one case of that. Obviously you're bluffing. And you're still evading.

The people who claim to be tolerant will not tolerate those with differenct values than they.
The proponents of multi-culturalism and diversity tend to be the least tolerant people in the country.
They know they are so morally superior that they will not tolerate disagreement

The current generation of leftists rely on the tactic of labeling dissagreement as "hate" while preaching "tolerance." I think they term it "Intolerance for the intolerant," which is nothing but a demonstration of their moronic hypocrisy. You have to be blind or incredibly stupid to not be able to easily find many examples of this simple fact.

"It's hard to find examples that fit your position."

Sometimes I see a statement that is so horrendously misguided as to be hilarious. This is one example.

" You have to be blind or incredibly stupid to not be able to easily find many examples of this simple fact. "

Really? Then show some.

"Sometimes I see a statement that is so horrendously misguided as to be hilarious. This is one example. "

And sometimes I see a response that is pure evasion. This is one of those. I think "conservatives" imagine most of these so-called examples of intolerance. If you know of a genuine one please point it out. Btw, I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying they are not nearly as common as "conservatives" suggest.

"No doubt there are some intolerant people on the left." It's hard to determine how blind you actually are if you can't find examples of intolerance by leftists. You might try putting down the pipe for a while and look at the world without that haze. Who got hit with a fine here?