Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I purposely wrote my last post so as to be so confusing that no one would dare challenge it. Even I don't know what it means.:mad:

[Carlene 12]

Because if we permit religion to run our country what happens when it isn't Christianity?

Just because people find something objectionable doesn't mean they are members of any religion.

I don't understand why some hot button topics, like abortion or gay marriage, are labeled religious issues, but others (gun legislation, for example) are not.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Just because people find something objectionable doesn't mean they are members of any religion.

I don't understand why some hot button topics, like abortion or gay marriage, are labeled religious issues, but others (gun legislation, for example) are not.

I agree with you that some issues are labeled religion issues but you know what? They are. Someone believes something is right because their church believes it is. That is a religious issue. Even if the person voting isn't the least bit affected by "X" action their church believes nobody should do it thus they vote so that others can't do it either.

Gun control is a big issue but it isn't typically being preached about in church.

[Carlene 12]

I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Christians attempt to put their beliefs into law.

Everyone tries to "put their beliefs into law". I believe gay people should be allowed to marry, so I would vote to make same gender marriage legal. I believe automatic weapons and handguns serve no useful purpose, except to kill people and hold up convenience stores. I would vote to restrict their sales. I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions, so I would support legislation that does not hold bartenders liable for over-serving patrons. None of these have anything to do with my religious convictions.

[Carlene 12]

Even if the person voting isn't the least bit affected by "X" action their church believes nobody should do it thus they vote so that others can't do it either.

I don't, and I can't possibly be unique in that respect.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions, so I would support legislation that does not hold bartenders liable for over-serving patrons. None of these have anything to do with my religious convictions.

Aren't bartenders people also and if they are people and people should take responsibilty for their actions, and the actions were serving people too much to drink, then why should bartenders not be responsible for that?

I am not saying that the drunk who runs someone over with his car should not be held responsible, but I am saying that the bartender should take his share of the responsibilty for what he did which was serving a drunk person.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I don't, and I can't possibly be unique in that respect.

You are not unique in that respect, but when a church holds 100 people and they can influence 40 to vote their way, it only takes 18% of the rest to make it a majority.

If there are 30 million Evangelicals and 80% vote the way that the president of the Evangelical council wants them to vote, it only takes about 20% of the rest of the eligible voters in the USA to elect a US President.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Everyone tries to "put their beliefs into law".

No they don't. I don't believe abortion is right but I don't prevent others from getting one. I believe it is wrong for me, I don't pretend to speak for others.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Aren't bartenders people also and if they are people and people should take responsibilty for their actions, and the actions were serving people too much to drink, then why should bartenders not be responsible for that?

Because personal responsibility isn't a bad thing. And because one person can have five drinks and not be affected and another person can have one drink and be rolling on the floor drunk. Doctors are not expected to be psychic regarding lab values, bartenders shouldn't have to be either.

[BJean 16]

I agree with BubbleButt on this one. Bartenders should be charged with the task of not serving alcoholic drinks to a person whom he believes has had too many drinks already, but it shouldn't be lesgislated. If you make the bartender responsible for people who over-imbibe, we may as well tell people that they can go into a bar and not worry about getting drunk because the bartender is going to make that decision for them. That takes the responsibility off the shoulders of the person who is doing the drinking (and possible driving) where it should be.

Unless you want bartenders to have the job of being law enforcers, instead of law followers, it just isn't right to blame them for someone leaving their bar and getting in a car and driving while drunk. First of all, how and when and by what standards are you going to train all bartenders to make the determination of whether a person has had too many drinks? What kind of weapon will a bartender be able to use when someone becomes unruly and decides to challenge the bartender? Law enforcement is what police are charged with - not bar owners. Police are trained to handle people who break the law. Bartenders are not and I don't want them to be. A person should be able to open a business, operate within the current laws and have reasonable business practices without having to become a law enforcer.

Anyone who drinks and drives should be responsible for breaking the law.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I agree with BubbleButt on this one. Bartenders should be charged with the task of not serving alcoholic drinks to a person whom he believes has had too many drinks already, but it shouldn't be lesgislated. If you make the bartender responsible for people who over-imbibe, we may as well tell people that they can go into a bar and not worry about getting drunk because the bartender is going to make that decision for them. That takes the responsibility off the shoulders of the person who is doing the drinking (and possible driving) where it should be.

I am not saying that the drunk who runs someone over with his car should not be held responsible, but I am saying that the bartender should take his share of the responsibilty for what he did which was serving a drunk person.

Where did you read anything about me suggesting that the drunk driver should not be held responsible?

There is much legal president in not allowing drunks to give informed consent. Men have been held liable for sexual abuse when having sex with a drunk woman who could not give consent and it is illegal (in many jurisdictions) to sign a contract while drunk.

No one is saying that the bartender should count drinks, but when a bartender serves a drink to a person who is slurring his speech or acting in a manner that would lead a normal person to conclude that the drinker was drunk, then the bartender should not serve him.

I used to be a heavy drinker and I decided one day that I was going to only have a few. After my third drink, the bartender said, "Here's one on the house, TOM". It doesn't take too many drinks before the will-power breaks down and I wound up having probably about ten drinks. I was only3 blocks from home, but I still could have killed somebody. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY FAULT, but the bartender was a contributing factor. Bars do not give away free drinks to be nice. They do it to make money and it works.

Unless you want bartenders to have the job of being law enforcers, instead of law followers, it just isn't right to blame them for someone leaving their bar and getting in a car and driving while drunk. First of all, how and when and by what standards are you going to train all bartenders to make the determination of whether a person has had too many drinks? What kind of weapon will a bartender be able to use when someone becomes unruly and decides to challenge the bartender? Law enforcement is what police are charged with - not bar owners. Police are trained to handle people who break the law. Bartenders are not and I don't want them to be. A person should be able to open a business, operate within the current laws and have reasonable business practices without having to become a law enforcer.

Anyone who drinks and drives should be responsible for breaking the law.

And who is most likely to threaten the bartender? The man who is drunk.

And if the "current law" says that bartenders share liability (as they do in many places) are you willing to agree that it is then the the bartender's responsibly to monitor his patrons?

TOM

PS: BJean, You have some temper. I love it when you get passionate about a topic. I would be afraid to cut off your drinks in a bar if I were a bartender or even if I was given a party in my home and you attended.

[Wheetsin 714]

No they don't. I don't believe abortion is right but I don't prevent others from getting one. I believe it is wrong for me, I don't pretend to speak for others.

Then I would think that ultimately your belief is that people should be able to choose on the matter of abortion for themselves, and that you would be voting based on your beliefs.

[Wheetsin 714]

I wonder how the bartender/drunk driving issue would play out in court. E.g. if I'm walking down a sidwalk and a car hops the curb and disables me, I could sue the person whose property the sidewalk was on, I could sue the driver of the car, I could sue the manufacturer of the car, I could sue the city that failed to put up a cautionary sign or the DOT that contracted the designer who made the turn so sharp that cars are likely to hop the curb... *sigh*

I use myself as an example, but actually I'm disgusted by our sue happy society.

But I wonder where liability WOULD end. Could end. If we're going to hold the bartender partially responsible, then we have to hold the bar establishment responsible too. Do we hold the liquor companies responsible? How about the friends who didn't take the person's keys away? Are they less at-fault than the bartender? And on...

Hmm.

[green 6]

Everyone tries to "put their beliefs into law". I believe gay people should be allowed to marry, so I would vote to make same gender marriage legal. I believe automatic weapons and handguns serve no useful purpose, except to kill people and hold up convenience stores. I would vote to restrict their sales. I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions, so I would support legislation that does not hold bartenders liable for over-serving patrons. None of these have anything to do with my religious convictions.

All of the above are enshrined in law where I live. Same sex marriage is legal. We do have strict gun laws and both bartenders and hosts who serve their guests too much can be held partially responsible in the event that the individual later drunkenly harms or kills another individual. They can be sued in a civil court of law.

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

Where did you read anything about me suggesting that the drunk driver should not be held responsible?

There is much legal president in not allowing drunks to give informed consent. Men have been held liable for sexual abuse when having sex with a drunk woman who could not give consent and it is illegal (in many jurisdictions) to sign a contract while drunk.

No one is saying that the bartender should count drinks, but when a bartender serves a drink to a person who is slurring his speech or acting in a manner that would lead a normal person to conclude that the drinker was drunk, then the bartender should not serve him.

I used to be a heavy drinker and I decided one day that I was going to only have a few. After my third drink, the bartender said, "Here's one on the house, TOM". It doesn't take too many drinks before the will-power breaks down and I wound up having probably about ten drinks. I was only3 blocks from home, but I still could have killed somebody. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY FAULT, but the bartender was a contributing factor. Bars do not give away free drinks to be nice. They do it to make money and it works.

And who is most likely to threaten the bartender? The man who is drunk.

And if the "current law" says that bartenders share liability (as they do in many places) are you willing to agree that it is then the the bartender's responsibly to monitor his patrons?

TOM

PS: BJean, You have some temper. I love it when you get passionate about a topic. I would be afraid to cut off your drinks in a bar if I were a bartender or even if I was given a party in my home and you attended.

Ok I used to be a bartender, and I agree that they have some responsibility to the rest of the world to cut people off when they are over the limit, BUT let's be realistic. THEY CAN NOT MONITOR everyone. They do not sign up to be babysitters, they are bartenders. I would make friends with my regulars and learn how to cut them off without making a big deal about it. BUT there have been times I have been physically assaulted for cutting someone off. The bottom line is, it is NOT a bartender's job to know YOUR limits. This is coming from someone who lost a family member to a drunk driver. I do not hold the bartender responsible. It was HIS choice to drink and drive. Bartenders actually take on a lot of roles that can help to cut someone off, but I do not feel that it ultimately their job. If I cut someone off, and they are determined to drink that night they will continue to do so.