PDA

View Full Version : Time to reinvent Canadian Conservatism or keep losing.



AskPermissionFollowOrders
07-29-2017, 06:55 AM
(Please forgive any insomnia induced errors and/or rambling. I wrote the post below in a few minutes)


Focus on the fiscal, and the social will follow.


I'm tired of a lack of conservatism, of a fiscal kind to be clear. Social conservatism has done nothing to roll back the expansion of the state, has done nothing to staunch the socialism endemic in Western nations. Far from it, it has aided and abetted, for many social conservatives are in favor of big government and statism as long as it is "their" flavor of big government.

I consider myself to be somewhat socially conservative (literally Hitler if you'd ask a stereotypical SJW), but I abhor statism and socialism. I could care less if homosexuals wish to marry, however I find it abhorrent when government goons force a bakery to bake them a cake against their will or force a religious institution to perform a wedding ceremony against their will.
Western social conservatism, and conservatism as a whole, can broaden its appeal by Bible-thumping less.
The first generation Chinese immigrant and his family who own and operate a fast-food restaurant down the street from where I live might not be Christians, but most likely aren't screeching SJWs either. Fiscal conservatism will be inherently appealing to any small business owner, but Judeo-Christian social conservatism might not be the most effective way of gaining another Conservative voter.
I have no doubt that many first and second generation immigrants (by immigrant, I don't mean recent "refugee") are socially conservative in their own ways (some of which are similar to Judeo-Christian social conservatism), but appealing to their social conservatism from a Judeo-Christian perspective won't be very effective if they aren't Christian. The most effective way to strengthen Conservatism, especially among non-Christian immigrants is to focus on the fiscal principles of Conservatism.



It's time to reverse Canada's ever accelerating decline towards full-scale socialism.

It's time to start winning. ;D

TJSpeller
07-29-2017, 08:23 AM
Agree.

I trust you are a member of the CPC, and on the Board of Directors for your local riding, so you can help influence policy creation and candidate selection.

In the next few months the CPC is undergoing the process of creating new or modify/deleting old policies, the most popular of which will be taken to the August 2018 Halifax convention to be voted upon. This is how we got the Simplified Classification System into the policy book, along with other pro-gun elements.

Here is some more information from our riding, for example:
https://universityrosedalecpc.com/2017/07/20/august-23-2017-policy-and-constitution-meeting/

This is for my riding, and only CPC members in the riding can participate. However, your riding should be having such a local meeting. If they are not, then the EDA (riding association) Board of Directors is not doing their job. Contact them and ask what's going on.

If people don't participate, there can be no progress. And if we bicker about petty issues instead of compromising on common positions, we lose even when we win (like the republicans in the US are doing right now).

The reason socialism and fanatic progressivism are winning is because they show up - in the education system, in the media, in protests, and in politics. We (Conservatives) are more peaceful, we go about our daily affairs and "don't have time" for that sort of stuff, and so we are losing the long game for the minds of our children and of society in general. We talk a good game on the internet, but too often we don't show up when it counts.

SIR VEYOR
07-29-2017, 09:39 AM
Actually, just focus on the fiscal and ignore the social as much as possible. Social Christianity should not be in Conservative politics.

Off topic below.
Government should be in the bedroom as little as possible. And should be in a lot of areas as little as possible.

Charity begins at home, typically executed best by a social organization using that home support. Previously that was predominantly religious organizations. And all faiths, not just Christian did it that way. Now, maybe some other socially developed groups cab get there too. But government should be doing minimal assistance. Notice I did not say none.

tdod101
07-29-2017, 09:43 AM
(Please forgive any insomnia induced errors and/or rambling. I wrote the post below in a few minutes)


Focus on the fiscal, and the social will follow.


I'm tired of a lack of conservatism, of a fiscal kind to be clear. Social conservatism has done nothing to roll back the expansion of the state, has done nothing to staunch the socialism endemic in Western nations. Far from it, it has aided and abetted, for many social conservatives are in favor of big government and statism as long as it is "their" flavor of big government.

I consider myself to be somewhat socially conservative (literally Hitler if you'd ask a stereotypical SJW), but I abhor statism and socialism. I could care less if homosexuals wish to marry, however I find it abhorrent when government goons force a bakery to bake them a cake against their will or force a religious institution to perform a wedding ceremony against their will.
Western social conservatism, and conservatism as a whole, can broaden its appeal by Bible-thumping less.
The first generation Chinese immigrant and his family who own and operate a fast-food restaurant down the street from where I live might not be Christians, but most likely aren't screeching SJWs either. Fiscal conservatism will be inherently appealing to any small business owner, but Judeo-Christian social conservatism might not be the most effective way of gaining another Conservative voter.
I have no doubt that many first and second generation immigrants (by immigrant, I don't mean recent "refugee") are socially conservative in their own ways (some of which are similar to Judeo-Christian social conservatism), but appealing to their social conservatism from a Judeo-Christian perspective won't be very effective if they aren't Christian. The most effective way to strengthen Conservatism, especially among non-Christian immigrants is to focus on the fiscal principles of Conservatism.



It's time to reverse Canada's ever accelerating decline towards full-scale socialism.

It's time to start winning. ;D

You should send this opinion piece in to some news papers. I bet they'd print it.

TJSpeller
07-29-2017, 10:44 AM
You should send this opinion piece in to some news papers. I bet they'd print it.

You should send it to the CPC and to your local MP if you are lucky enough to have a CPC MP. They are the ones who need to get this message.

ilikemoose
07-29-2017, 11:24 AM
I hate to tell you guys this, but Scheer is a Catholic, lives in Saskatchewan and was backed by the pro religious and pro life groups.

Canadian Conservationism is swinging in the correct direction....the Right direction in which populists, paleoconservatives and Reformers are not only welcome to sit at the table, but they don't have to leave their bibles outside.

As for fiscal conservatism...its one of the classic Protestant cultural virtues on which Canada was founded. There is no better way to expand that idea than to expand the entire doctrine which first elevated that as virtue.

When I read posts like the first one in this thread, it makes me think that people who claim to be conservative are uneducated on the history of the ideology that they claim to espouse.

Doug_M
07-29-2017, 01:07 PM
I hate to tell you guys this, but Scheer is a Catholic, lives in Saskatchewan and was backed by the pro religious and pro life groups

But he will run the party like Harper did in that he will keep social conservatism out of politics. You can take that to the bank.

Swampdonkey
07-29-2017, 01:18 PM
Christianity was a huge influence against Communism (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), an essential foundation of western civilization from before the Magna Carta even to our current Constitution (Supremacy of God), and it will be the main redoubt against Islam.

Social Justice has largely supplanted Christianity; see where that's leading us.

Find another group of people who contributes more and taxes society less. To say all religions are equal is to say the Salvation Army is like Islamic Jihad, that Mennonite colonies are the same as Indian Reserves. Every country that has abandoned Christianity has come to ruin.

I'd think twice about downplaying these members of the Conservative Party.

Swampdonkey
07-29-2017, 01:20 PM
But he will run the party like Harper did in that he will keep social conservatism out of politics. You can take that to the bank.

I'm hoping he learns from Stephen Harper and keeps his core hopeful. See Donald Trump.

Doug_M
07-29-2017, 02:19 PM
I'd think twice about downplaying these members of the Conservative Party.

Social conservatism has to morph into "live and let live" conservatism or it is doomed. And just so people don't misunderstand me, an example of "live and let live" as I would define it would be gay people can marry but a Christian baker does not have to bake a cake for their wedding.

TJSpeller
07-29-2017, 02:23 PM
Christianity was a huge influence against Communism (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), an essential foundation of western civilization from before the Magna Carta even to our current Constitution (Supremacy of God), and it will be the main redoubt against Islam.

Social Justice has largely supplanted Christianity; see where that's leading us.

Find another group of people who contributes more and taxes society less. To say all religions are equal is to say the Salvation Army is like Islamic Jihad, that Mennonite colonies are the same as Indian Reserves. Every country that has abandoned Christianity has come to ruin.

I'd think twice about downplaying these members of the Conservative Party.

Christianity in its present form is giving us a communist pope who kowtows to Islam and open borders while ignoring the massacres of Christians in the Middle East, a United Church that accepts ministers that don't believe in god, pointless "interfaith dialog" that hasn't changed the mind of one Islamist ever, and churches who take in masses of migrants from the third world and asks the government to bring in more,while sheltering illegal refugees and criminals from deportation.

In Canada, IIRC Catholics favour Liberals over Conservatives by large margins historically, including outside Quebec.

Sorry, these days they are part of the problem, not the solution.

I'm a lifelong atheist, but I'd think about supporting a church which fought for JudeoChristian values and took pride in the achievements of Western civilization. Too bad there is no such thing any more.

LB303
07-29-2017, 02:28 PM
Good points from different outlooks guys. I wonder whether, under the current Pope, the Catholic church in Poland would have been as effective of a 'back channel' support for Solidarity? We might never have heard of Lech Walesa...

Swampdonkey
07-29-2017, 02:44 PM
Social conservatism has to morph into "live and let live" conservatism or it is doomed. And just so people don't misunderstand me, an example of "live and let live" as I would define it would be gay people can marry but a Christian baker does not have to bake a cake for their wedding.

The welfare state has usurped the "live and let live" philosophy by letting people live and forcing others to pay.

You can live with your savings account and I'll live with my heroin habit, but when I become bankrupt and mentally ill, you have to pay me so I may continue my lifestyle. Sound fair?

Free association should include free dissociation, otherwise it's actually compulsory association.

Doug_M
07-29-2017, 02:48 PM
The welfare state has usurped the "live and let live" philosophy by letting people live and forcing others to pay.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying we currently live under a system of "live and let live". What you've described is the result of progressivism not live and let live. Your last line (not quoted) is part and parcel of my interpretation of live and let live.

Swampdonkey
07-29-2017, 02:50 PM
Christianity in its present form is giving us a communist pope who kowtows to Islam and open borders while ignoring the massacres of Christians in the Middle East, a United Church that accepts ministers that don't believe in god, pointless "interfaith dialog" that hasn't changed the mind of one Islamist ever, and churches who take in masses of migrants from the third world and asks the government to bring in more,while sheltering illegal refugees and criminals from deportation.

In Canada, IIRC Catholics favour Liberals over Conservatives by large margins historically, including outside Quebec.

Sorry, these days they are part of the problem, not the solution.

I'm a lifelong atheist, but I'd think about supporting a church which fought for JudeoChristian values and took pride in the achievements of Western civilization. Too bad there is no such thing any more.

You make reasonable observations, TJ.

I'm not saying how well the greater Church lives up to it's ideals; it may well need another Reformation by a modern Martin Luther. It's good to criticize it and challenge Christians to think about their beliefs and choices. They're as human as everyone.

I still opine that it's the best philosophy the world has, far better than Communism, Modernism, Post-Modernism/Existentialism, Islam, or New Age/Buddhism.

Jordan Peterson has given some good perspectives on it.

TJSpeller
07-29-2017, 03:39 PM
You make reasonable observations, TJ.

I'm not saying how well the greater Church lives up to it's ideals; it may well need another Reformation by a modern Martin Luther. It's good to criticize it and challenge Christians to think about their beliefs and choices. They're as human as everyone.

I still opine that it's the best philosophy the world has, far better than Communism, Modernism, Post-Modernism/Existentialism, Islam, or New Age/Buddhism.

Jordan Peterson has given some good perspectives on it.

A self confident christianity that did not feel the need to proselytize or convert, but preached and practised its own traditional beliefs, and did not enable the rise of alternative and destructive belief systems by omission or commission, would be the cornerstone for a society I would be happy to live in, atheist or not.

Many atheists love to slag Christianity (while holding their tongues on Islam of course), and there is much in the Christian past that deserves this, but I do believe that most of what is good in this our current Western civilization owes its existence to Christianity (and its Greek, Roman, and Jewish influences).

There is a reason why Europe and North America rose to become the most successful parts of the world, and a reason why they are in decline now, especially Europe.

glockfan
07-29-2017, 09:16 PM
what an interesting thread !

P-B.
07-30-2017, 08:53 AM
Agree Very good thread, and well thought out points by all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Swampdonkey in his above observations.

TJ, I also like your honesty and clear observances. :-)
Was thinking on this subject yesterday, and would just like to make a further observance;

If we here in Canada perceive God as supreme over All, It bars that position to anyone else!................If we do not acknowledge God, it leaves the "position" open for those who Think they Are God!
(I think we have one of these at present.... Which would you rather trust??? ) :-)
Being God is a job that no-one is cut out for, even if they are quite sure they qualify. (!)
Just a thought....

FallisCowboy
07-30-2017, 09:40 AM
Agree Very good thread, and well thought out points by all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Swampdonkey in his above observations.

TJ, I also like your honesty and clear observances. :-)
Was thinking on this subject yesterday, and would just like to make a further observance;

If we here in Canada perceive God as supreme over All, It bars that position to anyone else!................If we do not acknowledge God, it leaves the "position" open for those who Think they Are God!
(I think we have one of these at present.... Which would you rather trust??? ) :-)
Being God is a job that no-one is cut out for, especially if they are quite sure they qualify. (!)
Just a thought....

Modified for extra clarity.

Coke
07-30-2017, 04:57 PM
Agree Very good thread, and well thought out points by all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Swampdonkey in his above observations.

TJ, I also like your honesty and clear observances. :-)
Was thinking on this subject yesterday, and would just like to make a further observance;

If we here in Canada perceive God as supreme over All, It bars that position to anyone else!................If we do not acknowledge God, it leaves the "position" open for those who Think they Are God!
(I think we have one of these at present.... Which would you rather trust??? ) :-)
Being God is a job that no-one is cut out for, even if they are quite sure they qualify. (!)
Just a thought....

Those who want power do not deserve it.And those who deserve power do not want it. - John C. Maxwell

Weekend Gunslingers
07-30-2017, 05:07 PM
The problem as I see it is that the progressive left is legislating against the christian values the country was founded on. I refer to the baker being forced to bake the cake example as just one such instance. If they are so inclusive and all religions are to be protected, who is protecting christian values that are being mocked and legislated away on an accelerated basis since the libs took power? People are being made to feel ashamed for being a Christian or having Christian values. Scheer was mocked for this straight after being appointed.

Christianity needs to make its voice heard. I am of course not saying in a violent way, but when the left pushes, Christianity should push back. Turn the other cheek is causing its values to be eroded at an alarming pace. The once powerful ( built on the church of England) UK is a good example of how their own values are taking a back seat for the sake of being "politically correct".

P-B.
07-31-2017, 07:09 AM
You are right on the money, Weekend Gunslinger!

TJSpeller
07-31-2017, 02:52 PM
What's happened to the Church of England is beyond pathetic. Interestingly, the only bishops in that church with any moral backbone are the ones from Africa, but they are outnumbered and do not influence the political tone of the Church of England.

Meanwhile, Pentecostal churches,where the belief in Christ and traditional Christian values are much more central, in Britain are much more likely to attract new Christian immigrants. Their population is growing, while the Church of England is dying a pathetic death as the congregations age and attract no new members.

I guess what that tells us is that if you believe in nothing, no one will believe in you.

ilikemoose
08-01-2017, 12:13 AM
When I think about fiscal conservatives in Canadian politics who are also social liberals, I immediately think of Paul Martin...Liberal Finance Minister then PM.

That guy was smart, even ruthless when it came to money, but he was all about the gay rights.

Then I think about Harper( does not like gays), Scheer( does not like gays), Manning and Deb Grey( dont like the gays)...conservatives to the core.

Then I think about Harper...a guy who privately disliked gays but would not allow the social conservative family values part of his caucus to have a strong voice...then lost.

So this is what I have to say to the OP.

If you want to be a Paul Martin Liberal....go join the Liberal Party. Because that's what you are...a Bay Street liberal.

If Canadians wanted socially liberal Conservatives, they would have embraced Kim Campbell.

In the "small c conservative" world, we dont want you and your cuckservative sellout ideology, and if you had your way and ran all the Christians out of conservatism you and your ilk could hold your next convention in a phone booth.

Christians...from the deeply devout to the merely cultural run Canadian conservatism. Without us, you gay loving laissez fair capitalists have less pull than the Greens.

awndray
08-01-2017, 05:39 AM
What's up with the gay bashing?

tdod101
08-01-2017, 06:52 AM
When I think about fiscal conservatives in Canadian politics who are also social liberals, I immediately think of Paul Martin...Liberal Finance Minister then PM.

That guy was smart, even ruthless when it came to money, but he was all about the gay rights.

Then I think about Harper( does not like gays), Scheer( does not like gays), Manning and Deb Grey( dont like the gays)...conservatives to the core.

Then I think about Harper...a guy who privately disliked gays but would not allow the social conservative family values part of his caucus to have a strong voice...then lost.

So this is what I have to say to the OP.

If you want to be a Paul Martin Liberal....go join the Liberal Party. Because that's what you are...a Bay Street liberal.

If Canadians wanted socially liberal Conservatives, they would have embraced Kim Campbell.

In the "small c conservative" world, we dont want you and your cuckservative sellout ideology, and if you had your way and ran all the Christians out of conservatism you and your ilk could hold your next convention in a phone booth.

Christians...from the deeply devout to the merely cultural run Canadian conservatism. Without us, you gay loving laissez fair capitalists have less pull than the Greens.

Persuading people to go vote liberal, sometimes you're your on worst enemy.

Doug_M
08-01-2017, 07:04 AM
In the "small c conservative" world, we dont want you and your cuckservative sellout ideology, and if you had your way and ran all the Christians out of conservatism you and your ilk could hold your next convention in a phone booth.

Christians...from the deeply devout to the merely cultural run Canadian conservatism. Without us, you gay loving laissez fair capitalists have less pull than the Greens.


lol...I'm a small c and a large C conservative. Let me tell you about the reality of the Conservative Party of Canada from someone who is actually involved. We don't want "your ilk" and you have already been rejected by the party. By the way, as an atheist (who is not anti-Christian) on the outside looking in, you don't seem to be very Christian. Live and let live, love thy neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, do unto others as you would have done unto thee...

tdod101
08-01-2017, 07:09 AM
lol...I'm a small c and a large C conservative. Let me tell you about the reality of the Conservative Party of Canada from someone who is actually invovled. We don't want "your ilk" and you have already been rejected by the party. By the way, as an atheist (who is not anti-Christian) on the outside looking in, you don't seem to be very Christian. Live and let live, love thy neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, do unto others as you would have done unto thee...

Exactly. How about a gay conservative voting gun owner?

How about the pink pistols group.

http://countercurrentnews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Untitled-15.jpg

ilikemoose
08-01-2017, 07:13 AM
lol...I'm a small c and a large C conservative. Let me tell you about the reality of the Conservative Party of Canada from someone who is actually invovled. We don't want "your ilk" and you have already been rejected by the party. By the way, as an atheist (who is not anti-Christian) on the outside looking in, you don't seem to be very Christian. Live and let live, love thy neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, do unto others as you would have done unto thee...

You East Coast pseudoconservatives not wanting wanting my "ilk" has no doubt contributed to the CPC's massive electoral success in Nova Scotia.

awndray
08-01-2017, 07:31 AM
How about you stop pointing fingers, stop making blanket statements and ease up on the attacks?

Doug_M
08-01-2017, 07:45 AM
You East Coast pseudoconservatives not wanting wanting my "ilk" has no doubt contributed to the CPC's massive electoral success in Nova Scotia.

Born and raised in BC and have lived there more years than here. But okay.

GonZo
08-01-2017, 07:54 AM
You East Coast pseudoconservatives not wanting wanting my "ilk" has no doubt contributed to the CPC's massive electoral success in Nova Scotia.Seems to me that eastern canada voted for scheer and a good portion of western canada voted for mad max.

Now for all those talking about religious freedom.

Religious freedom - i cannot do something because my religion says i cant.

Religious persecution - you cannot do something because my religion says that you cant.

I would rather live in the free society. You know if you dont like gay marraige then dont marry a person of the same sex. Who are you to tell someone that they cannot do something because you do not like it.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

TJSpeller
08-01-2017, 09:13 AM
Exactly. How about a gay conservative voting gun owner?

How about the pink pistols group.

http://countercurrentnews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Untitled-15.jpg

The LBGTory group strongly supported gun owners in the last CPC convention in our policy meetings. A good number of them are gun owners. Just putting that out there for the record.

Today's youth are completely indifferent to the whole gay/straight thing. Smart, and winning, political parties will not open up those social issues. Live your life the way you want, let others do as they want as long as they are not breaking the law and harming no one (except maybe themselves).

My perspective is that social conservatives should support the CPC not because the CPC will bring their social ideas into law, but because the other guys (NDP, Liberals) will create laws that will make social conservative ideas illegal, while the CPC will mostly leave them alone.

It's pretty much the same as with gun ownership, actually.

My quest in belonging to the CPC is to make them the "freedom" party. I believe that's the path to electoral, and societal, success.

Weekend Gunslingers
08-01-2017, 10:54 AM
I would rather live in the free society. You know if you dont like gay marraige then dont marry a person of the same sex. Who are you to tell someone that they cannot do something because you do not like it.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

This. Since the libs don't like guns, nobody should have them comes to mind as a good example. When I mentioned Christian values before, I am by no means saying that people should not be able to live their lives like they want, I am just saying, do not force me to agree with it. Again, I am not bashing gay people at all, but the baker should have the choice whether to bake the cake or not without being guilty of a "hate crime".

GonZo
08-01-2017, 11:18 AM
This. Since the libs don't like guns, nobody should have them comes to mind as a good example. When I mentioned Christian values before, I am by no means saying that people should not be able to live their lives like they want, I am just saying, do not force me to agree with it. Again, I am not bashing gay people at all, but the baker should have the choice whether to bake the cake or not without being guilty of a "hate crime".

If you notice in the rest of my quote I don't agree with you. I find this baker is forcing his religious views onto others through his business. He specifically singled out same-sex couples wedding cakes, therefore denying a service he would freely give to others just based on enforcing his religious view. I do also think this caterer has found away around it currently by not making wedding cakes at all anymore. He can freely be allowed to think and say that same-sex marriage is wrong, but by refusing a service he would give to others is discrimination.

Should a Muslim baker quit serving any women that are not in a burka? This is essentially the same question as it deals with something that the Muslim baker would see as against there religion.

Swampdonkey
08-01-2017, 12:34 PM
What's wrong with having a dress code? One establishment might require a tie, another a burka, another might ban one sex entirely (women only gymnasium).

Most businesses are inclusive to expand their customer base, not for moral reasons.

Swampdonkey
08-01-2017, 12:49 PM
How about you stop pointing fingers, stop making blanket statements and ease up on the attacks?

As social beings, people are, to an extent, defined by their relationships. A man is known by the company he keeps.

Generalizations are approximate, but not false.

firemachine69
08-01-2017, 01:34 PM
If you notice in the rest of my quote I don't agree with you. I find this baker is forcing his religious views onto others through his business. He specifically singled out same-sex couples wedding cakes, therefore denying a service he would freely give to others just based on enforcing his religious view. I do also think this caterer has found away around it currently by not making wedding cakes at all anymore. He can freely be allowed to think and say that same-sex marriage is wrong, but by refusing a service he would give to others is discrimination.

Should a Muslim baker quit serving any women that are not in a burka? This is essentially the same question as it deals with something that the Muslim baker would see as against there religion.


They're not white, so of course a double-standard applies.

Doug_M
08-01-2017, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE=GonZo;507890Should a Muslim baker quit serving any women that are not in a burka?[/QUOTE]

This is a false comparison. It was not that the baker in question wouldn't sell the gay couple a wedding cake that was already made and in the display case, but rather that he would not do a custom order (as 99% of wedding cakes are) for them as weddings to him are religious.

Now if there is some special symbolic Halal dish that the baker refused to prepare for some non-Muslim then that is fine too.

killer kane
08-01-2017, 05:46 PM
His store, his rules, won't serve you because he's hardcore Catholic? go down the street, I'm sure someone will. Remember, if we keep going down this road where if you don't like something and you think you can forcefully change behavior by stamping your feet and or rioting, you're no better than the commie scum that we are fighting daily for the retention of what rights we have left. And the human rights vs private religious beliefs thing doesn't wash with me. I don't believe in organised religion, my wife's catholic, there are things we agree to disagree on and guess what? I don't even bring them up (Why would I, I like walking.).

tdod101
08-01-2017, 06:21 PM
His store, his rules, won't serve you because he's hardcore Catholic? go down the street, I'm sure someone will. Remember, if we keep going down this road where if you don't like something and you think you can forcefully change behavior by stamping your feet and or rioting, you're no better than the commie scum that we are fighting daily for the retention of what rights we have left. And the human rights vs private religious beliefs thing doesn't wash with me. I don't believe in organised religion, my wife's catholic, there are things we agree to disagree on and guess what? I don't even bring them up (Why would I, I like walking.).

Wasn't it stamping your feet and rioting that got us the rights we have today in the first place? Or is it only acceptable when it's certain rights you agree with? Oh wait no, that was war, even worse.

Look, either everyone is equal with the same rights or no one is equal and nobody has any rights. Frankly I vote for the aforementioned

ilikemoose
08-02-2017, 01:41 AM
Exactly. How about a gay conservative voting gun owner?

How about the pink pistols group.

http://countercurrentnews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Untitled-15.jpg

I suspect that the Pink Pistols are, at least in a Canadian context completely irrelevant if they even exist at all.

As for gay conservatives...one can only wonder at what kind of bizarre self loathing would induce a homosexual to claim to be a conservative and to want to associate with social conservatives. The entire gay conservative movement is probably some kind of well orchestrated fraud in order to induce cuckservatives to sell out in a futile hope of trading principles for power...something which is always a Faustian bargain.

SIR VEYOR
08-02-2017, 02:56 AM
You East Coast pseudoconservatives not wanting wanting my "ilk" has no doubt contributed to the CPC's massive electoral success in Nova Scotia.

So Bernier has a substantial financial conservative support base, couldn't build on it much...

Speer advanced with support from a substantial base but it didn't build on much, except by attrition of social conservative candidates...

So financial conservatism and non social mandating by the govt was strong and stayed put wth candidate touting that.

So IF social conservatives are ALSO fiscal conservatives, we have an almost universal agreement on fiscal conservatism.

The smaller swing vote is much more diverse and divided. But given some of Berniers background and policy positions for electability, I don't think he was defeated by social conservative priorities alone, or even by them.

So non Christian fiscal conservatism does appear to be present in the party. And they are not exactly left orientation in a lot of areas either. And that is definitely an area of membership that can and must be grown for right orientation to prosper. Which is the thrust of the OP.

Your "ilk" as you self-identify will always be welcome in a Conservative party, and its mostly realized that you cannot form an effective party by yourselves, especially federally. The lack of Eastern conservative representatives is for varied reasons, but hard social conservatism isn't steady or growing there. So for that area, your version of conservative policy winds up being off putting.

Doug_M
08-02-2017, 04:57 AM
As for gay conservatives...one can only wonder at what kind of bizarre self loathing would induce a homosexual to claim to be a conservative and to want to associate with social conservatives. The entire gay conservative movement is probably some kind of well orchestrated fraud in order to induce cuckservatives to sell out in a futile hope of trading principles for power...something which is always a Faustian bargain.

Unlike gender, politics exists on a spectrum and in Canada the only way to win is to unite a chunk of that spectrum. This is true for both the left and right halves of the spectrum, to wit the Liberal's recent win. Your kind of a conservative party could only be somewhat successful in Canada under a proportional representation system where periodically fringe parties can hold sway with government in order to pass this bill or that. But back here in reality social conservatives are only a fraction of the 30% base that the overall Conservative Party of Canada enjoys. Get over yourselves.

awndray
08-02-2017, 05:17 AM
As for gay conservatives...one can only wonder at what kind of bizarre self loathing would induce a homosexual to claim to be a conservative and to want to associate with social conservatives. The entire gay conservative movement is probably some kind of well orchestrated fraud in order to induce cuckservatives to sell out in a futile hope of trading principles for power...something which is always a Faustian bargain.

There you go with blanket statements again. How does it feel? How does it feel to be so ignorant?

TJSpeller
08-02-2017, 05:41 AM
I suspect that the Pink Pistols are, at least in a Canadian context completely irrelevant if they even exist at all.

As for gay conservatives...one can only wonder at what kind of bizarre self loathing would induce a homosexual to claim to be a conservative and to want to associate with social conservatives. The entire gay conservative movement is probably some kind of well orchestrated fraud in order to induce cuckservatives to sell out in a futile hope of trading principles for power...something which is always a Faustian bargain.

Do you know any? The ones I know run small businesses, are successful professionals, are excellent doctors, are people you can count on in a pinch to help you out, participate in local community work, have stable personal lives and a broad network of friends and family.

They are conservatives because they don't want government taking their hard earned money away to redistribute at a whim, because they don't want to bring the violence and hatred of the middle east to Canada, because they value Canadian history and heritage more than the cancer of "multiculturalism", because they like their guns, because they want Canada to be economically stable into the future, not turn into Venezuela.

They are also much more tolerant of the apparent hatred (or is it fear?) that many religious people have for them and their way of peaceful life than you are of what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Who the hell cares what they do in their bedrooms at night. I'd rather have them with me in a difficult situation than someone who obsesses about another person's sexual preferences to the point of self destruction of the nation they live in.

killer kane
08-02-2017, 04:02 PM
Wasn't it stamping your feet and rioting that got us the rights we have today in the first place? Or is it only acceptable when it's certain rights you agree with? Oh wait no, that was war, even worse.

Look, either everyone is equal with the same rights or no one is equal and nobody has any rights. Frankly I vote for the aforementioned

And that's exactly my point, the sjws I was talking about seem to think that by disrupting businesses doing nothing illegal, marching into and putting on a juvenile display while a conservative speaker is going about his or her business in a paid event, destroying public, as well as private property and attacking people, they will get the rest of society to fall in line with THEIR notions of what's right and what's wrong. That is damn well not a notion of everyone's equal in my books.

shortandlong
08-02-2017, 05:42 PM
all the "progressive " conservative means is capitulation

ilikemoose
08-02-2017, 11:44 PM
Do you know any? The ones I know run small businesses, are successful professionals, are excellent doctors, are people you can count on in a pinch to help you out, participate in local community work, have stable personal lives and a broad network of friends and family.

They are conservatives because they don't want government taking their hard earned money away to redistribute at a whim, because they don't want to bring the violence and hatred of the middle east to Canada, because they value Canadian history and heritage more than the cancer of "multiculturalism", because they like their guns, because they want Canada to be economically stable into the future, not turn into Venezuela.

They are also much more tolerant of the apparent hatred (or is it fear?) that many religious people have for them and their way of peaceful life than you are of what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Who the hell cares what they do in their bedrooms at night. I'd rather have them with me in a difficult situation than someone who obsesses about another person's sexual preferences to the point of self destruction of the nation they live in.

It seems so strange to me that you would be so opposed to "the cancer of multiculturalism" being a threat to Canadian history and heritage, yet you are so oblivious to the AIDS like destruction wrought on Canada's social fabric by the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

Redefining family, redefining marriage and now redefining gender as being whatever you happen to feel like you are...how can anyone who considers themselves a conservative support that post modernist redefinition of everything to the point where these terms mean nothing.

Doug_M
08-03-2017, 04:53 AM
It seems so strange to me that you would be so opposed to "the cancer of multiculturalism" being a threat to Canadian history and heritage, yet you are so oblivious to the AIDS like destruction wrought on Canada's social fabric by the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

Redefining family, redefining marriage and now redefining gender as being whatever you happen to feel like you are...how can anyone who considers themselves a conservative support that post modernist redefinition of everything to the point where these terms mean nothing.

There is a difference between homosexuality and post modernism. Homosexuality itself is not part of post modernism just by existing. Post modernism leverages homosexuality. Kind of like some gun owners are gang bangers but most are not. Gender identity/fluidity, destruction of the family etc are post modernism for sure. And yes there can be some "crossover", but you'll find that most of that (post modernism crap) is actually only coming from a small minority of the LGBT community and is really coming from SJW's and their political counterparts. From what I have seen and read most transgender people don't support that either. After all, the idea that gender is a spectrum and fluid goes against the "traditional" transgender who believes they are x trapped in a y body and then get a sex change to "correct" that. Once they've done that they don't want you to know they are trans, they want to be seen as whatever sex they've "transitioned" to.

awndray
08-03-2017, 05:22 AM
Redefining family, redefining marriage and now redefining gender as being whatever you happen to feel like you are...how can anyone who considers themselves a conservative support that post modernist redefinition of everything to the point where these terms mean nothing.

Are you insinuating the Christian faith owns family, marriage and gender?

Doug_M
08-03-2017, 06:57 AM
Are you insinuating the Christian faith owns family, marriage and gender?

Gender is "owned" by science. Marriage and family are part of our collective Christian/Judeo culture whether some people like it or not. But the post modernists very much want to destroy that along with our collective values. This goes way way beyond simple gay marriage and a live and let live philosophy. It is one thing to "live and let live" when it comes to gay marriage, it is quite another to promote gender and sexual orientation as "fluid" and a choice and to make efforts to indoctrinate school-age children (ON curriculum, NS curriculum, probably more) into believing these things are much more common than they are and that these things are normal. Pre-op transgendered persons suicide rate is something like 45 times higher than the general population and even higher post-op. There is a clinical diagnosis for it called gender dysphoria yet the post modernists aren't interested in treatment (such treatment can include transitioning to another sex to don't think I'm talking about "praying away the gay").

Example: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/love-is-possible-trans-man-gives-birth-to-healthy-baby-boy/wcm/d5bfffa9-6ccc-4929-a1ab-968caae2d14f

That isn't normal or healthy. That is pure post modernist garbage and is harmful to both the child, the parents and society. Look at the title. It is post modernists telling us that 2+2=5.


'Love is possible': Trans man gives birth to healthy baby boy
'I'm OK being a man who has a uterus and who has the capacity and capability of carrying a baby,' Trystan Reese said of all the interest in his pregnancy — far from the first time a man has carried a child

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/20155943_1360581197374425_8194169710889432662_n.jp g

Trystan Reese and his partner Biff Chaplow were already seasoned parents when they decided last year that they wanted another child.
Years earlier, they had adopted Chaplow’s niece and nephew after his sister was no longer able to take care of them. They raised the two children as their own, bringing them up in Los Angeles, where Reese and Chaplow worked in nonprofits, then moving the family to Portland, Ore., where they live now.
Adoption was a taxing process, Reese said, and learning how to care for two toddlers ushered in a suite of new challenges and lifestyle changes, as it does for any parent. But it was also eye-opening.
“After the dust settled, I just realized how much I loved our kids,” Reese told The Washington Post, “and how much room there was in our life for our family to grow.”
After trying for several months, Reese, a transgender man, got pregnant. And just weeks ago, he gave birth to a healthy baby boy.
Reese and Chaplow documented the pregnancy in blog posts and on social media, hoping to demystify what it means for a transgender man to give birth and create a new sense of normalcy for people in similar situations.
Their family’s story — and their willingness to go public with it — reflects a shift in public attitudes about pregnancy and parenting in transgender men as social stigmas have started to chip away and advocacy groups have campaigned for greater acceptance.
Reese and Chaplow, perhaps more than anything else, want to make one thing clear: they are not the first. Far from it.
“People get the idea that this was some experiment that we embarked on,” Reese said, adding that he watched friends go through the same process after transitioning. “This is tested ground. This is something that has been done in a very safe and healthy way. We’re loath to be put in that pioneer category.”
A number of transgender men have gone through successful pregnancies in recent years — and throughout history, for that matter — some of them long after beginning hormone replacement therapy. In one well-known example, the Village Voice published a narrative about Matt Rice, a transgender man who conceived in 1999 through artificial insemination and gave birth to a baby boy. Other pregnancies among transgender men have been documented in media reports more recently.
Reese, 34, was assigned female sex at birth and lived as a woman until his late teens. After counseling, he began taking hormones around age 20 and started identifying as a man. He met Chaplow, who was born male, about eight years ago and said it was “love at first sight.” They took custody of Chaplow’s sister’s children in 2011.
When they decided to have a biological child, they sought out medical advice. Doctors told them that because Reese had only undergone hormone therapy in his transition, preparing to conceive wouldn’t be very different than for a woman who had been on hormonal birth control. About five months after he stopped taking testosterone, Reese became pregnant. They chose not to discuss the method of conception they used.
“When I found out, it was equal parts elation and fear,” he said. “I was so excited to be on this journey with the person that I love, and then also really scared. Could I do this? Pregnancy is hard, labor is hard, and I hoped that I’d be able to handle it all.”
When Reese was six months along, he addressed people’s curiosities and misconceptions about his pregnancy in a video he shared on social media. Sitting on his couch with a melon-sized bump under his shirt, he explained how the testosterone he took caused him to grow facial hair and made his voice drop but left him with a functioning uterus and ovaries.
“I’ve never wished or wanted to be assigned male at birth or to have my body match up exactly with that of my partner, who was assigned male at birth,” Reese said. “I’m OK being trans. I think it’s kind of awesome, actually. and I’ve never wanted my body to be different.”
“If you can understand that then it starts to make more sense that it would not seem totally bizarre for me to want to create and carry a baby, because I don’t wish that my body was not a trans body,” he said. “I’m OK being a man who has a uterus and who has the capacity and capability of carrying a baby.”
Reese’s pregnancy had all the ups and downs of any pregnancy, complete with swollen feet, fatigue, mood swings and all the anticipation and excitement that comes with bringing a child into the world, he said.
On July 14, after 30 hours of labor, Reese gave birth to Leo, a 9.5-pound baby who he says is in great health.
Reese told The Post he never imagined his life would take such a turn when he began his gender transition some 14 years ago.
“I didn’t think I would ever find someone I would fall in love with and would be with me. Being able to adopt two brilliant, funny, sweet kids was something that I never dreamed of. The fact that any of this happened has been a total surprise to me, because that’s not the trans story we’re told, that love is possible, that being a loving family is possible.”

awndray
08-03-2017, 07:12 AM
Gender is "owned" by science. Marriage and family are part of our collective Christian/Judeo culture whether some people like it or not. But the post modernists very much want to destroy that along with our collective values. This goes way way beyond simple gay marriage and a live and let live philosophy.

Well aware. I'm just curious about ilikemouse's obvious disdain for a gay conservative person. I'd like to know makes him think a gay person can't be small c or even big C. It reminds me of the fudd versus tacticool debates, where people actually believe that there should only be one kinda of gun owner.

killer kane
08-03-2017, 09:38 AM
As much as I don't care what you do with yous partner, with their permission of course, A man doesn't have a uterus.

ilikemoose
08-03-2017, 10:59 AM
Doug, it seems that you are willing to draw the line somewhere in the middle of the LGBTQ agenda and say ...thats too far. The bearded chick being celebrated for having a kid seems more than you can take, and I am guessing zu don't think that misgendering someones pronouns is actually a hate crime.

I respect that.

All I am doing is drawing the line somewhere different. Two dudes getting married is, equally absurd, as is two Kathleene Wynne looking hags and a turkey baster starting a family.

And since the LGBTQpedo agenda is constantly moving the goalposts deeper into perverse absurdity you will either move into moral territory that you now would find reprehensible, or abandon your convictions.

Sooner than you think you will be like me...ranting against the insanity of the current state of affairs and wishing that someone had held the line a generation ago because if conservatives cant agree to fight it we are doomed.

awndray
08-03-2017, 11:08 AM
Blah, blah, LGBTQpedo
WTF are you going on about?


...if conservatives cant agree to fight it we are doomed.
Again I ask, what does any of this have to do with being conservative?

SIR VEYOR
08-03-2017, 11:09 AM
So ilikemoose

To identify as a conservative in government/political realms; do you think that the social conservative component is mandatory to be called a conservative?

And what is your opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church in the states?

It appears that you are falling even on right edge of most of the US "Evangelicals" I'm familiar with.

ilikemoose
08-03-2017, 11:14 AM
Yes, to be a conservative you have to be a social conservative.

Westboro Baptist was a false flag where mentally ill Fred Phelps was funded by left wing donors who wanted a caricature to attack.

GonZo
08-03-2017, 11:24 AM
Doug, it seems that you are willing to draw the line somewhere in the middle of the LGBTQ agenda and say ...thats too far. The bearded chick being celebrated for having a kid seems more than you can take, and I am guessing zu don't think that misgendering someones pronouns is actually a hate crime.

I respect that.

All I am doing is drawing the line somewhere different. Two dudes getting married is, equally absurd, as is two Kathleene Wynne looking hags and a turkey baster starting a family.

And since the LGBTQpedo agenda is constantly moving the goalposts deeper into perverse absurdity you will either move into moral territory that you now would find reprehensible, or abandon your convictions.

Sooner than you think you will be like me...ranting against the insanity of the current state of affairs and wishing that someone had held the line a generation ago because if conservatives cant agree to fight it we are doomed.

My main question to this is are you against two dudes legal joining there assets and benefits in a joined household or two dudes getting married or to both?

awndray
08-03-2017, 11:44 AM
Church and State, It's About Time You Separated | Huffington Post, 2013 » (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/doug-thomas/canada-separation-church-state_b_2598352.html)
Separation of Church & State in Canada | Canadian Atheist, 2014 » (http://canadianatheist.com/2014/05/separation-of-church-state-in-canada/)
Religion & Government | Canadian Secular Alliance / Gun Owners of Canada, 2016 » (http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?29165-Religion-amp-Government)
The much-needed separation of church and state | The Globe and Mail, 2017 » (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-much-needed-separation-of-church-and-state/article33759815/)

RangeBob
08-03-2017, 12:13 PM
Church and State, It's About Time You Separated | Huffington Post, 2013 » (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/doug-thomas/canada-separation-church-state_b_2598352.html)
Separation of Church & State in Canada | Canadian Atheist, 2014 » (http://canadianatheist.com/2014/05/separation-of-church-state-in-canada/)
Religion & Government | Canadian Secular Alliance / Gun Owners of Canada, 2016 » (http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?29165-Religion-amp-Government)
The much-needed separation of church and state | The Globe and Mail, 2017 » (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-much-needed-separation-of-church-and-state/article33759815/)

Stephen Fry on Political Correctness and Clear Thinking, based on empirical observation
- kings and queens vs open society @4:08
- separation of church and state @5:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQHakkViPo

ilikemoose
08-03-2017, 12:25 PM
Are you holding Stephen Fry up as an example of a Gay Conservative?

RangeBob
08-03-2017, 12:40 PM
Are you holding Stephen Fry up as an example of a Gay Conservative?

No.
I was thinking more of his words and ideas there,
and nothing whatsoever about the messenger.

Weekend Gunslingers
08-03-2017, 01:52 PM
Reading through this thread, it kind of show the point I was making about free speech etc. Everyone here has varied views on things, whether people agree with it or not. Everyone is allowed and opinion and their own beliefs as long as it does not infringe on the rights (not feelings, they don't count) of others.

TJSpeller
08-03-2017, 02:01 PM
It seems so strange to me that you would be so opposed to "the cancer of multiculturalism" being a threat to Canadian history and heritage, yet you are so oblivious to the AIDS like destruction wrought on Canada's social fabric by the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

Redefining family, redefining marriage and now redefining gender as being whatever you happen to feel like you are...how can anyone who considers themselves a conservative support that post modernist redefinition of everything to the point where these terms mean nothing.

There is a subset of the LBG(T) community who are noisy SJWs who hate families, hate capitalism, hate anything good in the current social order because they are, basically, losers who want to destroy a system that hasn't worked for them. Some are mentally ill. Some are plain stupid. Some are angry because life hasn't been good to them for reasons not their fault (or maybe their fault). They are the ones you see on TV throwing poo on people they don't agree with.

They do not represent the majority of LGBT community members who just want to live quiet, peaceful, successful stable lives.

And if social conservatism is so important to you, then you should be ecstatic about our immigration policies. We are importing hundreds of thousands who come from cultures that do not believe that women have the same rights as men, or that violence is not an acceptable means of disagreement, that religion is not a basis for law or public policy. But large numbers of them are very socially conservative, and believe in the traditional family that you seem to value so much.

Not that I don't value the traditional family - I come from one, I am in one - and I agree that much of what is wrong in society today is due to that destruction. Look at the black community in the US.

However, the destruction of the traditional family is not the result of the LGBT agenda. It's the result of the "progress" we've made since WWII, which sees most women working outside the home and the state take an ever greater role in educating and raising children, while the welfare state rewards the production of children out of wedlock. By comparison the impact of the LBGT agenda is a whistle into a windstorm.

Doug_M
08-03-2017, 04:08 PM
Doug, it seems that you are willing to draw the line somewhere in the middle of the LGBTQ agenda and say ...thats too far. The bearded chick being celebrated for having a kid seems more than you can take, and I am guessing zu don't think that misgendering someones pronouns is actually a hate crime.

I respect that.

All I am doing is drawing the line somewhere different. Two dudes getting married is, equally absurd, as is two Kathleene Wynne looking hags and a turkey baster starting a family.

And since the LGBTQpedo agenda is constantly moving the goalposts deeper into perverse absurdity you will either move into moral territory that you now would find reprehensible, or abandon your convictions.

Sooner than you think you will be like me...ranting against the insanity of the current state of affairs and wishing that someone had held the line a generation ago because if conservatives cant agree to fight it we are doomed.

Well politics (again, unlike gender) is a spectrum. Here's a crude (i.e. not fine-grained) drawing of how I see us (top is political spectrum, middle is where I see social "issues", and bottom is how I see the three groups acting):

Left Wing------Liberatianism (me)------Social Conservative (you)
Post Modern------Gay Marriage---------No gay marriage
Destruction-------live/let live------------dictate morals

The point being, I don't need to move into a different moral territory or abandon my convictions because what I oppose are the post modernists, and as TJ has pointed out, LGBT doesn't necessarily equal post modernist. And no, I will not be using any pronouns such as ze and zer because that is post modernism (and the dumbest thing I've heard this century). I share some social conservative beliefs with you but live and let live is higher on my tier of importance so long as no harm is being done. But usually where harm is being done it is again the post modernists doing it.

tdod101
08-03-2017, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by ilikemoose View Post
Redefining family, redefining marriage and now redefining gender as being whatever you happen to feel like you are...how can anyone who considers themselves a conservative support that post modernist redefinition of everything to the point where these terms mean nothing.

Because in a free society people are free to choose what they want to be or even identify as? Do we persecute people who believe in false gods and prophets and read from books with made up stories? Aka religion? No, we live and let live. So maybe you should take a page from the very book you believe in and do unto other as you wish done on to you.

killer kane
08-03-2017, 07:21 PM
There is a subset of the LBG(T) community who are noisy SJWs who hate families, hate capitalism, hate anything good in the current social order because they are, basically, losers who want to destroy a system that hasn't worked for them. Some are mentally ill. Some are plain stupid. Some are angry because life hasn't been good to them for reasons not their fault (or maybe their fault). They are the ones you see on TV throwing poo on people they don't agree with.

They do not represent the majority of LGBT community members who just want to live quiet, peaceful, successful stable lives.

And if social conservatism is so important to you, then you should be ecstatic about our immigration policies. We are importing hundreds of thousands who come from cultures that do not believe that women have the same rights as men, or that violence is not an acceptable means of disagreement, that religion is not a basis for law or public policy. But large numbers of them are very socially conservative, and believe in the traditional family that you seem to value so much.

Not that I don't value the traditional family - I come from one, I am in one - and I agree that much of what is wrong in society today is due to that destruction. Look at the black community in the US.

However, the destruction of the traditional family is not the result of the LGBT agenda. It's the result of the "progress" we've made since WWII, which sees most women working outside the home and the state take an ever greater role in educating and raising children, while the welfare state rewards the production of children out of wedlock. By comparison the impact of the LBGT agenda is a whistle into a windstorm.

I'm assuming the women not having the same rights as men is a keystroke error.:red:

Zinilin
08-03-2017, 07:25 PM
Because in a free society people are free to choose what they want to be or even identify as? Do we persecute people who believe in false gods and prophets and read from books with made up stories? Aka religion? No, we live and let live. So maybe you should take a page from the very book you believe in and do unto other as you wish done on to you.

So it's OK to choose to be a baker that chooses not do anything that supports, encourages, enables, promotes or acknowledges anything that they don't agree with.

lone-wolf
08-03-2017, 07:33 PM
So it's OK to choose to be a baker that chooses not do anything that supports, encourages, enables, promotes or acknowledges anything that they don't agree with.

Yes.

RangeBob
08-03-2017, 08:10 PM
The baker is different than a restaurant, because the restaurant doesn't change its menu -- it's just another of what they've done before.
The restaurant isn't even aware of the sexual orientation of the customer. (they would be aware of the race of the customer, but still didn't have to change the menu)

Whereas the baker didn't object to selling pre-made goods, or routinely made goods.
The baker objected to being made to write words to which he disagreed, to create custom work, custom art, for which his religion forbade.

This is similar to Prof. Jordan Peterson who has continued to state publicly he won’t use non-gendered pronouns — especially ones that have been created like “ze” and “zir” — which he said “compel the use of a particular kind of ideological language.”

Being compelled by the state to write words to which you disagree with so strongly that you won't do it even if you are paid to, and indeed will pay to not write, should be more offensive than the other.

The Supreme Court of the USA disagreed, and the Liberal government of Canada disagrees.

The sign "We reserve the right to refuse service" that we've seen for two hundred years -- is that now, and has it always been, illegal?

lone-wolf
08-03-2017, 08:37 PM
To not have the right to refuse service, is marking your labour as property of the government

tdod101
08-03-2017, 08:40 PM
The sign "We reserve the right to refuse service" that we've seen for two hundred years -- is that now, and has it always been, illegal?

White's only? Blacks at the back of the bus, black water fountain only? Whats the difference? Wether it be religion or race, human beings are a disgusting violent species, we all bleed the same blood, put your petty differences aside.

lone-wolf
08-03-2017, 08:44 PM
You prefer unknowingly giving your hard earned money to closet racists?

Zinilin
08-03-2017, 08:57 PM
Let's compel Neil Young to let Suncor use his music in their next Oil Sands commercial!

Then we can get the vegans to march in support of Alberta Beef and Starbucks to serve actual coffee!

ilikemoose
08-03-2017, 09:53 PM
Because in a free society people are free to choose what they want to be or even identify as? Do we persecute people who believe in false gods and prophets and read from books with made up stories? Aka religion? No, we live and let live. So maybe you should take a page from the very book you believe in and do unto other as you wish done on to you.

Absolute rubbish.

If I self identified as an orangutan, nobody would feel it acceptable for me to swing from trees and fling poop at passerby.

If self identified as a pigeon, that would not save me from death if I jumped off a bridge.

If I self identified as Native, can I stop paying taxes at the on reserve gas station?

So dont tell me I can choose to be whatever I want because we are in a "free society".

ilikemoose
08-03-2017, 10:24 PM
Well politics (again, unlike gender) is a spectrum. Here's a crude (i.e. not fine-grained) drawing of how I see us (top is political spectrum, middle is where I see social "issues", and bottom is how I see the three groups acting):

Left Wing------Liberatianism (me)------Social Conservative (you)
Post Modern------Gay Marriage---------No gay marriage
Destruction-------live/let live------------dictate morals

The point being, I don't need to move into a different moral territory or abandon my convictions because what I oppose are the post modernists, and as TJ has pointed, out LGBT doesn't necessarily equal post modernist. And no, I will not be using any pronouns such as ze and zer because that is post modernism (and the dumbest thing I've heard this century). I share some social conservative beliefs with you but live and let live is higher on my tier of importance so long as no harm is being done. But usually where harm is being done it is again the post modernists doing it.

I dont think you will move, but I can pretty much guarantee that LGBTQpedo will move the goalpoasts, and you will find yourself in the same boat as I do, which is having everyone more left wing than Preston Manning believing that I am a walking hate crime.

Its coming for zu sooner than zu think...one day zu are just like everyone else in small town Canada, the next thing you are "literally Hitler".

Just because you are ascribing to the live and let philosophy does not mean the LGBTQpedofeminaziBLMarxists are going to do so in return.

awndray
08-04-2017, 03:42 AM
AGAIN, WTF does LGBTQ2 have to do with pedophilia?

awndray
08-04-2017, 03:44 AM
Absolute rubbish.

If I self identified as an orangutan, nobody would feel it acceptable for me to swing from trees and fling poop at passerby.

If self identified as a pigeon, that would not save me from death if I jumped off a bridge.

If I self identified as Native, can I stop paying taxes at the on reserve gas station?

So dont tell me I can choose to be whatever I want because we are in a "free society".
In your own words, absolute rubbish. You couldn't have used more ridiculous analogies.

Doug_M
08-04-2017, 04:57 AM
White's only? Blacks at the back of the bus, black water fountain only? Whats the difference? Wether it be religion or race, human beings are a disgusting violent species, we all bleed the same blood, put your petty differences aside.

There is a difference between race and religion, a big difference. No one chooses their race whereas religion is a choice (at times it is indoctrination too, but it is something that one can change).

Doug_M
08-04-2017, 04:58 AM
AGAIN, WTF does LGBTQ2 have to do with pedophilia?

The majority of pedos are gay men. Not that all gay men are pedos.

Doug_M
08-04-2017, 05:00 AM
I dont think you will move, but I can pretty much guarantee that LGBTQpedo will move the goalpoasts, and you will find yourself in the same boat as I do, which is having everyone more left wing than Preston Manning believing that I am a walking hate crime.

Its coming for zu sooner than zu think...one day zu are just like everyone else in small town Canada, the next thing you are "literally Hitler".

Just because you are ascribing to the live and let philosophy does not mean the LGBTQpedofeminaziBLMarxists are going to do so in return.

But again, it isn't the LGBT moving the goal posts. It is the post modernists/social marxist and ze am already full on opposed to they, now and in the future.

awndray
08-04-2017, 05:45 AM
The majority of pedos are gay men. Not that all gay men are pedos.

Yea, but I want to hear from the intolerant, ignorant and clearly uninformed ilikemoose. He insists on lumping them all together when he uses his made-up "LGBTpedo" designation.

In case he or anyone else didn't get it when I posted it on page 2, here's a link to another thread like this one. It was closed for a reason.

http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?29165-Religion-amp-Government


We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But, we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity). Posts with racist or extremist comments or content are not allowed. This includes links to sites with such content.
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?760-GOC-Site-Rules-amp-Policy

People can call it censorship if they want to. Most reasonable people would call it respect. And if you can't respect it, then kindly log off and don't come back. Some people here appear to have a superiority complex or believe they're righteous because of their faith. Quite frankly, it's beyond arrogant.

TJSpeller
08-04-2017, 06:21 AM
I fear we have diverged somehwat from our discussion of creating a successful Canadian conservatism...

ilikemoose
08-04-2017, 12:59 PM
Yea, but I want to hear from the intolerant, ignorant and clearly uninformed ilikemoose. He insists on lumping them all together when he uses his made-up "LGBTpedo" designation.

In case he or anyone else didn't get it when I posted it on page 2, here's a link to another thread like this one. It was closed for a reason.

http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?29165-Religion-amp-Government


http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?760-GOC-Site-Rules-amp-Policy

People can call it censorship if they want to. Most reasonable people would call it respect. And if you can't respect it, then kindly log off and don't come back. Some people here appear to have a superiority complex or believe they're righteous because of their faith. Quite frankly, it's beyond arrogant.

You are not a moderator, and you are not the arbiter of who gets to say what on this board.

You don't get to decide who gets to post on this board.

In your unbridled narcissisim, you have created a whole new SJW catagory...the Transmod, which is one who self identifies as the guy who enforces the terms of service, but lacks the actual ability to do so.

Joshua13
08-04-2017, 01:18 PM
AGAIN, WTF does LGBTQ2 have to do with pedophilia?It has everything to do with it. With all these sexual preferences and sexual orientations we are already begining to see a big move towards the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual preference and not as something evil. There are a number of videos posted by pedophiles talking about how they can still be attracted to children without actually going and raping them. The whole leftist agenda about accepting people for who they are and not giving a damn about "morality" is setting the stage for the decriminalization of things such as pedophilia and whatever else. I guarantee within a very few short years we will be bombarded with h people shouting about the rights of pedophiles and how us right wingers are pedophobic. (Google that term it's already being used)

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

lone-wolf
08-04-2017, 01:35 PM
We start treating them as people with a medical/biological/physiological issue, instead of some kind of supernatural evil we don't want to see or hear - we may find better ways of management or to actually eliminate the urge.

Seems a better idea that the current system of moving them around from school to school or church to church and only having to deal with them when after there's dozen of victims.

I'm closing this thread for a few min at least. Multiple complaints I'd like the rest of the mods to review.

lone-wolf
08-20-2017, 12:29 PM
A few min turned into a few days, lol
Thread is being reopened, behave yourselves, don't make or respond to personal attacks.
Don't like someone's comment, attack the idea not the person.

firemachine69
08-20-2017, 05:46 PM
A few min turned into a few days, lol
Thread is being reopened, behave yourselves, don't make or respond to personal attacks.
Don't like someone's comment, attack the idea not the person.



LGBTWTFBBQ!!!!

Okay okay, I made you chuckle, just admit it. ;D

shootemup604
08-20-2017, 11:56 PM
Liquor
Guns
Bacon
Titties

firemachine69
08-21-2017, 03:54 AM
Yea, but I want to hear from the intolerant, ignorant and clearly uninformed ilikemoose. He insists on lumping them all together when he uses his made-up "LGBTpedo" designation.

In case he or anyone else didn't get it when I posted it on page 2, here's a link to another thread like this one. It was closed for a reason.

http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?29165-Religion-amp-Government


http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?760-GOC-Site-Rules-amp-Policy

People can call it censorship if they want to. Most reasonable people would call it respect. And if you can't respect it, then kindly log off and don't come back. Some people here appear to have a superiority complex or believe they're righteous because of their faith. Quite frankly, it's beyond arrogant.



And some of us think you have a mental disease if you're having illusions about what's in between your legs. After all, you're not going to let the schizophrenic walk around hallucinating about purple unicorns in the hall, you're going to want to get them treatment.


This may blow your mind away, but some of us deal with mind illnesses on a daily basis. We see what we can properly identify as an issue, and our bias is confirmed when people are still "sick" after getting "treatment" (in this particular case, if you speak to a trans person later on in life, most of them after a few years start to fall apart because lopping "it" off didn't solve the mental conflict inside their heads.)

awndray
08-21-2017, 05:41 AM
So what you're saying is, *I am above* the rules? Gotcha.

Doug_M
08-21-2017, 06:47 AM
So what you're saying is, *I am above* the rules? Gotcha.

That makes no sense Awndray. What rules?

awndray
08-21-2017, 06:53 AM
He quoted my reference to the GOC rules. So, those rules.

Rory McCanuck
08-21-2017, 07:27 AM
4 posts, well done boys.