packsaddle

NJ, if we DID have a previous thread about that article THAT would be a fact. It might not be a fact that you 'know', however. Therefore I suppose you could have an 'opinion' about it thus making it both a fact AND an opinion??? OK, now roll your eyes and silently listen to yourself thinking, "what-EV-er".

Skeptic, can you see the 'edit' button if you hover the cursor down in the bottom row where the 'thanks' and 'quote' buttons are? If not, we can refer your situation to the gurus.

So...if, hundreds of years from now, someone promotes an unpublished written manuscript by Jerry Falwell as being somehow profound, are we going to develop, in a thousand years more, some future social media (or maybe mental telepathy?) forum debating the fine points of what he meant in his original language (now nearly forgotten) and how it applies to a different time when technology has removed some more social barriers, etc.? Jimmy Swaggart? Reverend Moon? Joel Osteen? Can you imagine the time that would be wasted doing something like that?

Or, Eagledad, you could answer. You started the thread after all. Unless you really want Merlyn to be your voice in these forums.

"I mind my own business and as long as others (any others) do the same, we're good." And I agree completely. If only everyone could just do the same.

So how would you define or otherwise distinguish 'fact' as different from 'opinion'? How would you objectively determine that moral claims are 'fact'?

That's an internal church problem. None of my business.

Stosh, I have had, and still have, many gay friends (as you probably suspect). Not a single one of them has attacked anything other than a plate full of food at our home once in a while. They, however, are quite ready to defend their right to be treated as full members of society, equals in all legal respects, and if the past restrictions on gay marriage are an example of activities they don't agree with then their organized opposition to such unfair (and, I think unconstitutional) laws is justified. But that does not constitute an attack on anything other than an unjust law which denies them the same rights as other citizens. Edit: mine are named after relatives. I suspect that one of them MIGHT like to sue me...naahh...better to just wait patiently for the estate, LOL.

Years ago my really good Jewish friend named his two boys 'Peter' and 'Paul'. Go figure. But they got along just fine together.

Helloooo....reading comprehension time.....the reason I QUOTED YOU was because YOU referred to the local press, not me. YOU were the one who suggested reading the local press to learn about the 'reality' of things there. Pullleeeezzzzz

Interesting. "But it's always easier to believe anything in print, isn't it?" Well...if your earlier statement ("If you bothered to read any of the local press...") is a guide, the answer must be 'yes' for you as well as others. ...or is it kettles and pots...? C'mon! Lighten up, Frances!

Cambridgeskip, While i share your feeling that this doesn't make much sense, I can tell you that when I've asked this in the past, I've been informed that those laws you mention are Old Testament and that everything has been revised in the New Testament, so-to-speak, usually in the writings of Paul. H'mmmm, maybe one person really CAN make a difference.....wait a minute..what am I saying?....of course one person can....look at THE POPE....Joseph Smith....L. Ron Hubbard...Reverend Moon...David Koresh...Bhagwan Shree Rajhneesh Jim Bakker...Jim Jones...Bob Jones...Little Richard...Mayor Koch...Donald Trump...Tiny Tim....the examples are endless.

AZMike, Why did you post that second response in which you appear merely to have quoted yourself? Not a criticism, it's a little confusing..or maybe I'm just up too late. Anyway, I'll respond to the last part of that post, the one that isn't a quote. "Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. He admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right: JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage? GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue. Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups." In the case of BJU, the decision was with regard to racial discrimination for which there was written law and legal precedent (and remedy). Their position regarding race was based (in their minds) on scripture just the same as their prejudice against gays. But while your analogy is good, and while Verrillii may have honestly thought it was "going to be an issue" although he didn't think he could answer the question without more specifics, that is merely an opinion that an issue might arise in the future. It doesn't mean that he's going to raise it himself. LOL, Alito already did that with his question - in the Supreme Court no less! But none of that exchange mentioned anything about 'teaching', merely some nebulous 'opposition' to same-sex marriage (which may be removed as an issue later this summer - I predict pages of I&P discussion either way). Besides, it already was an issue in the past, at least regarding access, and now, because they accepted federal funding for the museum, they allow gays entry to campus and to that museum. Are you saying that is a bad thing? As for those business examples, that kind of exercise of the 1st amendment has been happening for as long as this has been a country, or longer. If you don't like a business owner then don't do business - tell your friends and other people about it - organize a boycott. I won't attend any conference in this state because of a long-standing boycott. Am I bad because of that? The fact that business owners hold a certain political view is not privileged information if they have divulged that fact publicly and people are free to inform others of the fact. People are also free to promote boycotts for any reason they like. I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it.

Feels great, doesn't it, to have these kinds of successes? Congratulations!

Is it time to mention pots and kettles?

Crotchety, maybe bordering on curmudgeonly. I should know...I'm there already.

So Rick, how about that Heinie Show? LOL, and just look...54 cents for a movie at the Alhambra, OUTRAGEOUS! But...it's Laughton and 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'...can't go wrong. Less expensive at the others thankfully. Of course, there's "The African Queen", one of the best of all time playing at Riverside and who could pass up "With a Song in My Heart" at the drive-in? Gonna be some serious smooching tonight!

'Some people' have always been 'out there' but they seem to have taken control of things lately. We can blame ourselves. We put them in those positions. And for once, I can defend Texas (just a little bit) in that it is easy for me to identify other states and authority structures in which the 'nutters', as Beavah used to refer to them, are in charge...both at present and in the past.

Deeeelicious! It's true...you CAN'T make this stuff up, at least I can't. Thanks!

So, what is the threshold for 'major purchase'? I'll pass it on to the people who still have this policy.

You really don't know crap about what happened. There was no 'fine print'. The rental company has a fleet of about 12 cars, purchased used from Japan, most of them with inflated tires. There is no AVIS or Hertz. The rental agreement is MIMEOGRAPHED and then filled by hand and copies made with carbon paper. They run cards with a little attachment to a cell phone. And they don't put a 'hold' on a week's rental, I could have paid THAT out of pocket, they 'held' about $5000 USD. Laugh all you want but when I'm handed a debit card by the state and ordered to use it for official travel instead of another purchase method, I do it. So go laugh your way to the governor's mansion..I didn't have a choice. Research that!

Interesting photo. The eyes, the expressions. Despite all the things we complain about, I'm thankful to be American, that my children are Americans. Edit: the next article on the Saudis was interesting too.

NJ......... decides to bang his head against something else.

Fees? Anyone who is paying fees is paying too much. To me a debit card is no different from a cash transaction, with virtually the same risks...except..... The 'hold' thing is a real problem that I've encountered before too. I had a Wells Fargo debit card and used it to rent a vehicle in another country. I had plenty in the account to cover the rental but BECAUSE it was a debit card, the RENTAL COMPANY (not the bank) put a hold on an amount that was nearly my entire budget, basically the cost of replacing the vehicle. I didn't know this until I later tried to pay for a student outing for my class. There was nothing available in the account. So I called Wells Fargo who informed me of the hold and that there was nothing the bank could do about it. They informed me that if I had used a credit card instead, I never would have noticed the hold because it would have 'gone away' once I paid the bill at the end. But it was too late by that time to change the billing so I ended up putting the entire trip on my personal credit card anyway. When I paid for the rental at the end of the trip, all of a sudden I had the entire budget back again and NOW the budget office was on my back because I was supposed to use that d***** debit card instead of getting reimbursements. That popped the cork and I had a nice chat with them. I cut the debit card in half and handed it to them. Never again.