|
Post by Comrade Question on Jun 1, 2018 16:02:09 GMT -5
You basically call him a nigger ("mulatto in chief") on the regular with no blowback, so why should anything else you say raise any eyebrows here? Fuck you, you simpleton. I called him a Mulatto because he is one....as a sarcastic clarification of the Left's celebratory chants about our "first black" president.
So, you equate the term "mulatto" with the racial insult "nigger"?
You're an imbecile, looking for an argument. Go find one, and consult a dictionary while you're at it.
Dude, it's 2018, and you think people still use the term "mulatto" as what, a scientific term? Why don't you just go the whole nine and call him a nigger? We all know that's what you want to do, anyway, isn't it? Or are you trying to tell everybody that you really give a shit about his white half?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 16:06:58 GMT -5
Fuck you, you simpleton. I called him a Mulatto because he is one....as a sarcastic clarification of the Left's celebratory chants about our "first black" president.
So, you equate the term "mulatto" with the racial insult "nigger"?
You're an imbecile, looking for an argument. Go find one, and consult a dictionary while you're at it.
Dude, it's 2018, and you think people still use the term "mulatto" as what, a scientific term? Why don't you just go the whole nine and call him a nigger? We all know that's what you want to do, anyway, isn't it? Or are you trying to tell everybody that you really give a shit about his white half?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Jun 1, 2018 16:19:10 GMT -5
Dude, it's 2018, and you think people still use the term "mulatto" as what, a scientific term? Why don't you just go the whole nine and call him a nigger? We all know that's what you want to do, anyway, isn't it? Or are you trying to tell everybody that you really give a shit about his white half?
Who's offended? Why can't you admit that you call him a weaker slur because you're too chicken shit to just tell us how you really feel and drop the N-bomb? Why don't you run along before your snowflake feelings get hurt again by my mean words?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 10:24:11 GMT -5
Careful Cyber. Comrade is a sensitive little bitch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 12:27:39 GMT -5
Who's offended? Why can't you admit that you call him a weaker slur because you're too chicken shit to just tell us how you really feel and drop the N-bomb? Why don't you run along before your snowflake feelings get hurt again by my mean words?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 12:51:06 GMT -5
Just can't figure out why CommieRad seems to think I hate Obama. I simply think he was, and is, an ineffective, grinning totem for the supposed joys of socialism and wealth re-distribution.
Not to mention a slick liar who crammed a poorly conceived "universal" (it wasn't) health care system down the public's throats by convincing enough fools that "if you like your doctor/health plan", etc. you can keep 'em, and so forth.
Oh, and an embarrassingly naïve waif in foreign policy, overseeing the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco (trading five imprisoned terrorists for a worthless Army deserter), the Benghazi mess and comically clumsy cover-up, the awful "arms agreement" with Iran that left Israel vulnerable to nuclear attack within our lifetimes, etc.
"Cool clock, Ahmed."
"You didn't build that."
"They cling to their guns and religion", etc.
"I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman", etc.
What a goddamned CLOWN.
The guy was an absolute disaster -- socially, politically and economically. Saying these things has no hateful impetus; simply criticism for a bait-and- switch bitch that traded on his skin color to gain high office, and then demonstrate his hatred for our country and its values.
I like black people generally; having worked with 'em and so forth, both in the military and design rooms throughout my long career. It doesn't mean they are immune from well-deserved criticism about the runaway problems that exist within their anything-goes culture (see my sig).
The men are OK.
The women are wonderful; they were forbidden fruit for those in my generation. Yeah, I sampled some...
Oh, those memories of those topless dancer girls I worked with, bartending at Schnee's Lounge in East Dubuque, IL back in the summer of '76...
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jun 2, 2018 13:20:08 GMT -5
Fuck you, you simpleton. I called him a Mulatto because he is one....as a sarcastic clarification of the Left's celebratory chants about our "first black" president.
So, you equate the term "mulatto" with the racial insult "nigger"?
You're an imbecile, looking for an argument. Go find one, and consult a dictionary while you're at it.
Dude, it's 2018, and you think people still use the term "mulatto" as what, a scientific term? Why don't you just go the whole nine and call him a nigger? We all know that's what you want to do, anyway, isn't it? Or are you trying to tell everybody that you really give a shit about his white half? Mulato is an offical term all over Latin America. Its even displayed in driver licenses as a way to describe your race. In my experience it has never been used as a derogatory term. No more than called someone of mixed race. Half white, half black.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 13:46:56 GMT -5
^^^ Thanks Premier, I would have told CommieRad that -- and basically did -- but unfortunately he's apparently too dim to understand.
All he needed to do was consult a dictionary as I suggested. But then again, liberals aren't interested in facts or actual MEANINGS of words.
Only their emotions, like a bunch of hormonal-teen girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 15:24:15 GMT -5
These are (mostly) Comrade's people. No grip on reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 12:06:51 GMT -5
Has ComradeCumguzzler taken his 'lil snowflake ass home, or to another forum?
Maybe he's getting that testicle prescription filled.
|
|
|
Post by vegeta420z on Jun 3, 2018 20:45:40 GMT -5
These are (mostly) Comrade's people. No grip on reality. So Tony youve clearly had your asshole fucked by both groups, you got a preference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 9:58:03 GMT -5
So I guess the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the bakery, in a legal dispute over a gay-wedding cake that NEVER should have had to go that far?
Religious convictions upheld? Imagine that. I have no use for religion anymore (raised as a Catholic), but these are important values to millions.
No doubt the butt-sniffers are aghast, but that's what happens when simple civility is thrown out the window, in favor of cramming a sexual perversion (offensive to some people) down their throats.
Sometimes, the OTHER guy's rights "Trump" yours. I like this revised top court already.
Now, on to that travel ban....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 10:08:45 GMT -5
JUSTICES SIDE WITH COLORADO BAKER ON SAME-SEX WEDDING CAKE
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
The justices' limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
The same-sex couple at the heart of the case, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, complained to the Colorado commission in 2012 after they visited Phillips' shop in suburban Denver and the baker quickly told them he would not create a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips' refusal violated the law. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.
But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.
That same sentiment suffused his opinion on Monday. "The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," he wrote.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
(Yeah, I'm still calling her SoftShell Tacomayor until it no longer amuses me)
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 4, 2018 10:17:17 GMT -5
Even the most ardent liberal sycophants agree Sotomayor is the least qualified justice of all time. She's going to dissent out of emotion because she's incapable of provocative thought. Ginsburg is a dementia ridden hate monger who hopefully passes away soon, but she is senile enough to believe the shit she writes.
This entire issue is coming to a head soon and the liberals views that states can force businesses into these boxes is going to FAIL hard. Then Soros will fund the jackel/andrew buffoons to protest about fascism, misunderstanding this ruling opposes fascism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 19:06:15 GMT -5
I feel the cake deal was a cash grab by lawyers. Same with a good portion of these ADA compliance lawsuits.
I'm sure there were plenty of cake bakers in the area that could have made an amazing cake, one that the creator/baker would have been proud to have made.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Jun 4, 2018 23:16:23 GMT -5
mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/graduate-quotes-trump-obama.htmlKid trolled the people at some Kentucky high school graduation by saying an Obama quote and attributing it to Trump, before pausing then saying "just kidding, that was Barack Obama". The crowd went from cheering hearing their Supreme leader's name like a bunch of trained monkeys, to stopping abruptly hearing Obama. One dumbass booed. Not one laugh, even though it's pretty clearly funny. Pretty sad that this shit storm has even taken people's humor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 23:41:41 GMT -5
I feel the cake deal was a cash grab by lawyers. Same with a good portion of these ADA compliance lawsuits. I'm sure there were plenty of cake bakers in the area that could have made an amazing cake, one that the creator/baker would have been proud to have made. I don't understand the theory that a private company is forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. That baker does not owe it to anyone to make cakes if he chooses not to. Forcing someone who has put their own money on the line to open and run a business to do something that goes against their beliefs is fucking horseshit. I should not be able to go in to my neighborhood Himalayan restaurant and demand they serve me beef
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Jun 5, 2018 8:47:38 GMT -5
I feel the cake deal was a cash grab by lawyers. Same with a good portion of these ADA compliance lawsuits. I'm sure there were plenty of cake bakers in the area that could have made an amazing cake, one that the creator/baker would have been proud to have made. I don't understand the theory that a private company is forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. That baker does not owe it to anyone to make cakes if he chooses not to. Forcing someone who has put their own money on the line to open and run a business to do something that goes against their beliefs is fucking horseshit. I should not be able to go in to my neighborhood Himalayan restaurant and demand they serve me beef I haven't read the decision yet and I'm not trying to weigh in on whether it is a good or bad decision. But I can explain to you the theory behind forcing a private company to do something they don't want to do. And you can like that theory or dislike it, but I hope you'll at least understand it going forward. The US has decided that there are certain classes of people who have historically been subject to discrimination in places open to the public and in employment decisions, who need protection under the law. These classes of people are often referred to as protected classes. To give an often-cited example, a restaurant can no longer refuse service someone because they're black, in that black people are protected classes. This is due to the Civil Rights Act, which made Race, Religion, and National Origin protected classes under federal law (and had significant bi-partisan support, more so from R's than D's). To give another, an employer can no longer fire someone because they're old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) or because they're pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Speaking generally, there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by private employers or private businesses as regards gay people. But some states have laws that make gays protected classes. I strongly suspect that this cake case came from one of those states. If a himalayan restaurant refused to serve you beef, that wouldn't be illegal for a number of reasons. The restaurant isn't choosing not to serve you beef because of your protected class status, they're refusing because that's not on the menu. So, they could also refuse to wash your car. Because they're not in the business of washing cars. Now, if you were Christian, and you went to that same restaurant and ordered something on the menu, and they refused to serve you because you're a Christian, that would be in violation of the law - specifically the Civil Rights Act. If you think that's dumb we have protected classes, Ok. You're entitled to your opinion on that. But I hope you at least now understand the theory behind why places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating against certain people for some reasons (race, religion, etc), but not others (wearing a dumb t-shit, having red hair, etc.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 9:17:05 GMT -5
I don't understand the theory that a private company is forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. That baker does not owe it to anyone to make cakes if he chooses not to. Forcing someone who has put their own money on the line to open and run a business to do something that goes against their beliefs is fucking horseshit. I should not be able to go in to my neighborhood Himalayan restaurant and demand they serve me beef I haven't read the decision yet and I'm not trying to weigh in on whether it is a good or bad decision. But I can explain to you the theory behind forcing a private company to do something they don't want to do. And you can like that theory or dislike it, but I hope you'll at least understand it going forward. The US has decided that there are certain classes of people who have historically been subject to discrimination in places open to the public and in employment decisions, who need protection under the law. These classes of people are often referred to as protected classes. To give an often-cited example, a restaurant can no longer refuse service someone because they're black, in that black people are protected classes. This is due to the Civil Rights Act, which made Race, Religion, and National Origin protected classes under federal law (and had significant bi-partisan support, more so from R's than D's). To give another, an employer can no longer fire someone because they're old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) or because they're pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Speaking generally, there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by private employers or private businesses as regards gay people. But some states have laws that make gays protected classes. I strongly suspect that this cake case came from one of those states. If a himalayan restaurant refused to serve you beef, that wouldn't be illegal for a number of reasons. The restaurant isn't choosing not to serve you beef because of your protected class status, they're refusing because that's not on the menu. So, they could also refuse to wash your car. Because they're not in the business of washing cars. Now, if you were Christian, and you went to that same restaurant and ordered something on the menu, and they refused to serve you because you're a Christian, that would be in violation of the law - specifically the Civil Rights Act. If you think that's dumb we have protected classes, Ok. You're entitled to your opinion on that. But I hope you at least now understand the theory behind why places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating against certain people for some reasons (race, religion, etc), but not others (wearing a dumb t-shit, having red hair, etc.) I do understand the premise of certain groups that are in a protected class. While I feel that things like that are a little bit redundant at this point, I also can understand that certain parts of the country are behind the times in accepting homosexuality as normal. I do not think that our country needs to go down the road of forcing businesses to do things that they don't feel morally acceptable however. Does a cemetery need to allow someone to put KKK symbols on a headstone? Does a jewelry maker need to be forced to make rings for a Polygamist? Should a Catholic church be forced to allow a homosexual ceremony on it's premises? In private business there is a substantial amount of risk that the ownership takes on in order to start up and operate. With that I believe comes the ability to operate in a way that doesn't turn you in to a servant to the greater public population.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 5, 2018 11:35:43 GMT -5
I don't understand the theory that a private company is forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. That baker does not owe it to anyone to make cakes if he chooses not to. Forcing someone who has put their own money on the line to open and run a business to do something that goes against their beliefs is fucking horseshit. I should not be able to go in to my neighborhood Himalayan restaurant and demand they serve me beef I haven't read the decision yet and I'm not trying to weigh in on whether it is a good or bad decision. But I can explain to you the theory behind forcing a private company to do something they don't want to do. And you can like that theory or dislike it, but I hope you'll at least understand it going forward. The US has decided that there are certain classes of people who have historically been subject to discrimination in places open to the public and in employment decisions, who need protection under the law. These classes of people are often referred to as protected classes. To give an often-cited example, a restaurant can no longer refuse service someone because they're black, in that black people are protected classes. This is due to the Civil Rights Act, which made Race, Religion, and National Origin protected classes under federal law (and had significant bi-partisan support, more so from R's than D's). To give another, an employer can no longer fire someone because they're old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) or because they're pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Speaking generally, there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by private employers or private businesses as regards gay people. But some states have laws that make gays protected classes. I strongly suspect that this cake case came from one of those states. If a himalayan restaurant refused to serve you beef, that wouldn't be illegal for a number of reasons. The restaurant isn't choosing not to serve you beef because of your protected class status, they're refusing because that's not on the menu. So, they could also refuse to wash your car. Because they're not in the business of washing cars. Now, if you were Christian, and you went to that same restaurant and ordered something on the menu, and they refused to serve you because you're a Christian, that would be in violation of the law - specifically the Civil Rights Act. If you think that's dumb we have protected classes, Ok. You're entitled to your opinion on that. But I hope you at least now understand the theory behind why places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating against certain people for some reasons (race, religion, etc), but not others (wearing a dumb t-shit, having red hair, etc.) I think you're leaving out a very central and important fact of this case: the business owner ALSO has protection to practice religious freedom. He exercised that protection and was attacked for it, and the entire liberal argument in this case and EVERY similar case seems to come down to the protection the state must provide to gays vs the religious freedom of the business owner. In a larger sense, these cases are also poorly summarized. Liberals insinuating even slightly this is similar to blacks drinking from a water fountain, is why you see a groundswell of opposition to the state trying to force feed liberal idealism onto businesses. This case is NOT about a failure to provide services to these gay guys. The baker DID and continued to sell goods to gays and they he will make them cookies and cakes to their hearts desire. He denied participating in making a cake for a marriage because he believes, per his faith, that marriage is between a man and a woman and to engage in any way towards their ceremony does not align with his religion (gay marriage was also ILLEGAL in Colorado when he denied making the cake). He is NOT denying service to gays, he is denying a specific request that violates his faith. That distinction is important whether anyone agrees or disagrees. And, in a rational discussion, we have to consider harm. These gays can easily get any number of people to bake them a cake but they want the state to order ANYONE selling cakes to do exactly what they want with zero room for consideration. That's radicalism and why this has become so contentious. This is the LGBT new power movement saying they demand every person not only respect what they want, but they have to do it they way they want them to. It's an emotional argument and not a legal one, which is the main reason you see liberals go beserzk and become incapable of rational dialogue. As much as I personally disagree with the extension and abuse of who can claim to be a member of a protected class, I do agree a business cannot say "I refuse to sell to you because you are X color, X age, etc. But there is a ton of room to operate in harmony on both sides and the left operates in a vacuum with zero room to be reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 13:25:50 GMT -5
I haven't read the decision yet and I'm not trying to weigh in on whether it is a good or bad decision. But I can explain to you the theory behind forcing a private company to do something they don't want to do. And you can like that theory or dislike it, but I hope you'll at least understand it going forward. The US has decided that there are certain classes of people who have historically been subject to discrimination in places open to the public and in employment decisions, who need protection under the law. These classes of people are often referred to as protected classes. To give an often-cited example, a restaurant can no longer refuse service someone because they're black, in that black people are protected classes. This is due to the Civil Rights Act, which made Race, Religion, and National Origin protected classes under federal law (and had significant bi-partisan support, more so from R's than D's). To give another, an employer can no longer fire someone because they're old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) or because they're pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Speaking generally, there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by private employers or private businesses as regards gay people. But some states have laws that make gays protected classes. I strongly suspect that this cake case came from one of those states. If a himalayan restaurant refused to serve you beef, that wouldn't be illegal for a number of reasons. The restaurant isn't choosing not to serve you beef because of your protected class status, they're refusing because that's not on the menu. So, they could also refuse to wash your car. Because they're not in the business of washing cars. Now, if you were Christian, and you went to that same restaurant and ordered something on the menu, and they refused to serve you because you're a Christian, that would be in violation of the law - specifically the Civil Rights Act. If you think that's dumb we have protected classes, Ok. You're entitled to your opinion on that. But I hope you at least now understand the theory behind why places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating against certain people for some reasons (race, religion, etc), but not others (wearing a dumb t-shit, having red hair, etc.) I think you're leaving out a very central and important fact of this case: the business owner ALSO has protection to practice religious freedom. He exercised that protection and was attacked for it, Well I've seen pictures and video of the baker in question, and he's breaking parts of his religion on a regular basis, so why does he get to pick and choose which parts of the religion he follows?
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Jun 5, 2018 13:39:21 GMT -5
I haven't read the decision yet and I'm not trying to weigh in on whether it is a good or bad decision. But I can explain to you the theory behind forcing a private company to do something they don't want to do. And you can like that theory or dislike it, but I hope you'll at least understand it going forward. The US has decided that there are certain classes of people who have historically been subject to discrimination in places open to the public and in employment decisions, who need protection under the law. These classes of people are often referred to as protected classes. To give an often-cited example, a restaurant can no longer refuse service someone because they're black, in that black people are protected classes. This is due to the Civil Rights Act, which made Race, Religion, and National Origin protected classes under federal law (and had significant bi-partisan support, more so from R's than D's). To give another, an employer can no longer fire someone because they're old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) or because they're pregnant (Pregnancy Discrimination Act). Speaking generally, there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by private employers or private businesses as regards gay people. But some states have laws that make gays protected classes. I strongly suspect that this cake case came from one of those states. If a himalayan restaurant refused to serve you beef, that wouldn't be illegal for a number of reasons. The restaurant isn't choosing not to serve you beef because of your protected class status, they're refusing because that's not on the menu. So, they could also refuse to wash your car. Because they're not in the business of washing cars. Now, if you were Christian, and you went to that same restaurant and ordered something on the menu, and they refused to serve you because you're a Christian, that would be in violation of the law - specifically the Civil Rights Act. If you think that's dumb we have protected classes, Ok. You're entitled to your opinion on that. But I hope you at least now understand the theory behind why places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating against certain people for some reasons (race, religion, etc), but not others (wearing a dumb t-shit, having red hair, etc.) I do understand the premise of certain groups that are in a protected class. While I feel that things like that are a little bit redundant at this point, I also can understand that certain parts of the country are behind the times in accepting homosexuality as normal. I do not think that our country needs to go down the road of forcing businesses to do things that they don't feel morally acceptable however. Does a cemetery need to allow someone to put KKK symbols on a headstone? Does a jewelry maker need to be forced to make rings for a Polygamist? Should a Catholic church be forced to allow a homosexual ceremony on it's premises? In private business there is a substantial amount of risk that the ownership takes on in order to start up and operate. With that I believe comes the ability to operate in a way that doesn't turn you in to a servant to the greater public population. I think the answers to your questions under federal law are: (1) cemetery / KKK - NO; (2) jeweler / Polygamist - NO; (3) Church/gay marriage - NO. I don't think members of the KKK, polygamists, or gays, are protected classes under federal law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 14:18:27 GMT -5
From what I heard. The Supreme Court didn't side with the bakers in that it was okay for them to deny baking a cake for a gay couple. The Supreme Court just said the state was wrong for the actions they took against the bakers. The Supreme Court basically kicked the can when it comes to if a Christian baker could refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.
I look at it like this, I get what Jamesrkd is saying but when a gay couple wants a cake and a baker is claiming religion as a reason not to, the government should side with the one that isn't basically forced to do something against their will. The gay couple can go elsewhere, the cake baker shouldn't be forced to do anything. It is a dangerous precedent to set having the gubment force someone to do something against their will. Especially when there are other options available.
That's just my two cents though. I don't believe in 2018, that we need protected classes anymore but that may be my optimism causing me to be naive.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 5, 2018 14:18:36 GMT -5
I think you're leaving out a very central and important fact of this case: the business owner ALSO has protection to practice religious freedom. He exercised that protection and was attacked for it, Well I've seen pictures and video of the baker in question, and he's breaking parts of his religion on a regular basis, so why does he get to pick and choose which parts of the religion he follows? This is an adult discussion and you fail to meet the minimum IQ to participate. Move along to lying about something in another thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 14:20:22 GMT -5
I think you're leaving out a very central and important fact of this case: the business owner ALSO has protection to practice religious freedom. He exercised that protection and was attacked for it, Well I've seen pictures and video of the baker in question, and he's breaking parts of his religion on a regular basis, so why does he get to pick and choose which parts of the religion he follows? Did you really just ask why a person gets to choose which parts of his religion he follows? What the fuck. Who else gets to decide, you? The government? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 14:47:13 GMT -5
Well I've seen pictures and video of the baker in question, and he's breaking parts of his religion on a regular basis, so why does he get to pick and choose which parts of the religion he follows? Did you really just ask why a person gets to choose which parts of his religion he follows? What the fuck. Who else gets to decide, you? The government? Lol. My point is, if you don't follow all the tenants/rules of a religion, then you aren't following the religion, you are following a philosophy, which last I checked isn't protected by the law. So if someone is not actually following the rules of their stated religion, why are they allowed to claim something "goes against their religion" when they are already choosing to do other things against their religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 15:06:54 GMT -5
Did you really just ask why a person gets to choose which parts of his religion he follows? What the fuck. Who else gets to decide, you? The government? Lol. My point is, if you don't follow all the tenants/rules of a religion, then you aren't following the religion, you are following a philosophy, which last I checked isn't protected by the law. So if someone is not actually following the rules of their stated religion, why are they allowed to claim something "goes against their religion" when they are already choosing to do other things against their religion. It's none of your damn business how someone chooses to practice their religion. It's not for you to decide if doing X goes against their religious beliefs or is incongruent with what you believe is accepted doctrine. There is a reason why their are so many different denominations of Christianity and it is because they all practice or believe a little differently.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 15:40:00 GMT -5
My point is, if you don't follow all the tenants/rules of a religion, then you aren't following the religion, you are following a philosophy, which last I checked isn't protected by the law. So if someone is not actually following the rules of their stated religion, why are they allowed to claim something "goes against their religion" when they are already choosing to do other things against their religion. It's none of your damn business how someone chooses to practice their religion. It's not for you to decide if doing X goes against their religious beliefs or is incongruent with what you believe is accepted doctrine. There is a reason why their are so many different denominations of Christianity and it is because they all practice or believe a little differently. Except that in cases of protected class of religion, it has to be a state recognized religion. In the case of this baker, based on things he does, he is not following any state recognized religion, so why should he be considered a protected class?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 16:01:40 GMT -5
It's none of your damn business how someone chooses to practice their religion. It's not for you to decide if doing X goes against their religious beliefs or is incongruent with what you believe is accepted doctrine. There is a reason why their are so many different denominations of Christianity and it is because they all practice or believe a little differently. Except that in cases of protected class of religion, it has to be a state recognized religion. In the case of this baker, based on things he does, he is not following any state recognized religion, so why should he be considered a protected class? Shut the fuck up Jackel. Your argument is fucking stupid. You are trying to be the arbiter of what constitutes proper religious practice and you sound really fucking dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 16:34:29 GMT -5
Except that in cases of protected class of religion, it has to be a state recognized religion. In the case of this baker, based on things he does, he is not following any state recognized religion, so why should he be considered a protected class? Shut the fuck up Jackel. Your argument is fucking stupid. You are trying to be the arbiter of what constitutes proper religious practice and you sound really fucking dumb. No, I'm just saying the state recognizes specific religions (with the exception of Indiana or Arkansas or whichever it was that passed that law that accidentally made almost anything a religion). The baker in question, unquestionably does not follow the rules of the religion, so how can he say he's a follower of it? If he likes the philosophy of a religion, and wants to follow that so be it, but if you honestly believe in a religion, why can't you follow it's rules? If they want special treatment, they better have absolute belief in it IMO.
|
|