While I don't understand same sex appeal and don't personally agree with it, I believe in equality to the extent that folks should be able to marry who they want.


What I don't agree with that has already been pointed out, is forming an antidiscrimination group out of this for the LGBT folks that would force business to serve them when it goes against their religious beliefs.


I would be curious to see the reaction of the American people to a gay owned business, say a t-shirt shop, if they were told they were required by law to print shirts for a church/religious organization with a message that was totally against what they believe in. I would be curious about the reaction of the gay business owners as well. We have already seen what happens when the opposite occurs.

---

Yeah, we disagree on many things I'm sure.  I think that would actually be a good idea -- the split.  But only if the democratic party also split.  Doing away with the two party system would be nice.

 

We definitely agree on doing away with the two party system being in the best interest of the United States.  

 

While I'm sure the Democrats have their own factions within their party,  as a Republican I see a number of different factions in the Republican Party.  The differences are to the extent that it's a major reason why it's going to become more and more difficult for the Republicans to win Presidential Elections with any consistency. 

---

Regardless of whether we agree with someone's beliefs or not, we should respect the person. There are many things I don't agree with that go on in society due to people's personal beliefs, but such is life in a diverse population and I deal with it in my own way. As long as people aren't hurting each other, no laws are being broken and it's not causing riots in the streets.... I mean, what's the point in getting bent out of shape? Name calling, backbiting and the like just show immaturity and intolerance. I really wish we didn't have to tolerate each other. I wish we could agree to disagree and get on with the business of living.

---

Mike Huckabee hasn't been consistent enough in opposing Common Core.   On this issue,  we are in agreement. 

 

He's been a proponent of Common core, forget opposing it, he's practically a spokesperson for it.

 

  Though we disagree on at least one major issue,  as this thread and others like it reflect,   I do agree that the Republican Party will split.   It's realistically possible that it will split into more than 2 parties. 

 

I see 3 factions in the Republican party.

 

1.) Establishment Neo-Conservative wing (Mike Huckabee, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio)

 

Typically they're very war hawkish. Big on "national defense" and preemptive war maneuvers. No problem with Government first solutions for social issues. Soft on Border Control and pro big brother surveillance legislation (Patriot Act, NDAA, and so on)

 

2.) Social Conservatives wing (Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Ron DeSantis, Fred Thompson)

 

Focused primarily on social issues and traditional values. The End result is what matter most to social conservatives, not the means to achieving that goal which why of all the factions in the GOP they've lost most ground. Typically Social Conservatives are stricter on Border Control then the Neo-Conservatives and not nearly as War-Hawkish as the Neo-Cons but they still default to legislative solutions on Moral issues. Social Conservatives do however tend to take anti-surveillance stands. 

 

3.) Libertarian Conservative wing (Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amish,  Ted Yoho, Ron Paul)

 

Really a minority in the GOP but the ones left typically are viewed as radical minority. Very anti-War Hawkish and take strong stands against preemptive war maneuvers. Strict Border Control and anti-surveillance legislation across the board. Typically oppose moral legislation across the board with the exception being abortion (there are more liberal wings within the libertarian movement that support pro-choice stances but I'm talking about the republican libertarian wing.) Focused primarily on domestic policy's and borderline isolationism on foreign policy (all though you won't get many of them to admit it publicly.)

---

We definitely agree on doing away with the two party system being in the best interest of the United States.  

 

While I'm sure the Democrats have their own factions within their party,  as a Republican I see a number of different factions in the Republican Party.  The differences are to the extent that it's a major reason why it's going to become more and more difficult for the Republicans to win Presidential Elections with any consistency.

I agree with this. My husband and I were talking about that earlier. He's a self described neo-con and I am a policy voter. Whoever's policies line up the most with mine, or more importantly, their voting record lines up with what I believe in, is who gets my vote. He votes party line every time. He's pretty disillusioned with the Republicans though and believes the 2016 election is going to be ridiculous. I think he's right on that.

---

He's been a proponent of Common core, forget opposing it, he's practically a spokesperson for it.

 

 

I see 3 factions in the Republican party.

 

1.) Establishment Neo-Conservative wing (Mike Huckabee, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio)

 

Typically they're very war hawkish. Big on "national defense" and preemptive war maneuvers. No problem with Government first solutions for social issues. Soft on Border Control and pro big brother surveillance legislation (Patriot Act, NDAA, and so on)

 

2.) Social Conservatives wing (Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Ron DeSantis, Fred Thompson)

 

Focused primarily on social issues and traditional values. The End result is what matter most to social conservatives, not the means to achieving that goal which why of all the factions in the GOP they've lost most ground. Typically Social Conservatives are stricter on Border Control then the Neo-Conservatives and not nearly as War-Hawkish as the Neo-Cons but they still default to legislative solutions on Moral issues. Social Conservatives do however tend to take anti-surveillance stands. 

 

3.) Libertarian Conservative wing (Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amish,  Ted Yoho, Ron Paul)

 

Really a minority in the GOP but the ones left typically are viewed as radical minority. Very anti-War Hawkish and take strong stands against preemptive war maneuvers. Strict Border Control and anti-surveillance legislation across the board. Typically oppose moral legislation across the board with the exception being abortion (there are more liberal wings within the libertarian movement that support pro-choice stances but I'm talking about the republican libertarian wing.) Focused primarily on domestic policy's and borderline isolationism on foreign policy (all though you won't get many of them to admit it publicly.)

 

 Of the 3 factions that you mentioned,  my positions are closer to faction # 2 than the other ones you mentioned.   Providing that the faction would also put an emphasis on Fiscal Conservatism and that sound National Security strategy is part of the equation.   

---

I agree with this. My husband and I were talking about that earlier. He's a self described neo-con and I am a policy voter. Whoever's policies line up the most with mine, or more importantly, their voting record lines up with what I believe in, is who gets my vote. He votes party line every time. He's pretty disillusioned with the Republicans though and believes the 2016 election is going to be ridiculous. I think he's right on that.

 

 Unfortunately,  I agree with both you and your husband regarding what's likely ahead in the 2016 election.   I'm totally in Ted Cruz's corner but I'm not optimistic about him getting the Republican Nomination for President.

 

 While in a long time I haven't voted for a Democrat candidate on any level,  there have been some elections in recent years that I decided to either vote for a 3rd Party candidate or write in someone as a protest vote.   It's happening more and more.   With the same strategy being planned in 2016 if the Republicans foolishly nominate Chris Christie for President.   

---

 Of the 3 factions that you mentioned,  my positions are closer to faction # 2 than the other ones you mentioned.   Providing that the faction would also put an emphasis on Fiscal Conservatism and that sound National Security strategy is part of the equation.   

 

I'm close to the 3rd faction but honestly if we don't unite the 2nd and 3rd factions neither of them stand much of a chance against the Neo-Conservative establishment GOP. 

---

Why shouldn't they be a miserable as the rest of us :teehee: :yes:

---

No political party should EVER have the right to limit freedom of choice.. 

---

No political party should EVER have the right to limit freedom of choice.. 

 

agreed so long as it does not harm others, free choice is what it's all about.

---

While I don't understand same sex appeal and don't personally agree with it, I believe in equality to the extent that folks should be able to marry who they want.


What I don't agree with that has already been pointed out, is forming an antidiscrimination group out of this for the LGBT folks that would force business to serve them when it goes against their religious beliefs.


I would be curious to see the reaction of the American people to a gay owned business, say a t-shirt shop, if they were told they were required by law to print shirts for a church/religious organization with a message that was totally against what they believe in. I would be curious about the reaction of the gay business owners as well. We have already seen what happens when the opposite occurs.

 

If you run a business in the US there are laws you have to follow.  One is not discriminating against a group of people.  Doesn't god love all people?  Just seems so hypocritical.

---

If you run a business in the US there are laws you have to follow.  One is not discriminating against a group of people.  Doesn't god love all people?  Just seems so hypocritical.

 

One should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs to engage in business. "Discrimination" laws should never supersede the First Amendment.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you run a business in the US there are laws you have to follow.  One is not discriminating against a group of people.  Doesn't god love all people?  Just seems so hypocritical.

 

Wrong, discrimination isn't illegal. 

---

Wrong, discrimination isn't illegal. 

 

I file Affirmative Action under discrimination.. 

---

I file Affirmative Action under discrimination.. 

Exactly there's tons of discrimination that's not only permissible but also state sponsored every day.

 

No Shirt No Shoes No Service.

 

What we have right now is selective enforcement of discrimination laws based upon legislation passed on high from Washington. 

---

One should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs to engage in business. "Discrimination" laws should never supersede the First Amendment.

Does the Bible teach you or others to treat people differently? I'm just amazed people use their religion as a tool to discriminate against others. One of the main reasons I started to question my beliefs.

---

One should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs to engage in business. "Discrimination" laws should never supersede the First Amendment.

And if your religious belief is to discriminate against black people you would be okay with that? Where do you draw the line?

---

Does the Bible teach you or others to treat people differently? I'm just amazed people use their religion as a tool to discriminate against others. One of the main reasons I started to question my beliefs.

 

we can't discuss religion here why do you keep bringing it up?

 

And if your religious belief is to discriminate against black people you would be okay with that? Where do you draw the line?

 

no for government to decide, bad religions, bad organizations, they are for people to chose to avoid not government to legislate away. 

---

One should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs to engage in business. "Discrimination" laws should never supersede the First Amendment.

 

There should be no "discrimination laws" there's no authority for it. 

---