Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 17:03:42 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? No doubt you have something really stupid to say regarding this topic, based upon the fact you've seen the baker's picture.
Would you be terribly offended if I echoed OC's polite request to take your insightful opinion to a forum for Down's Syndrome kids? I am sure the younger ones would laugh in agreement, before their similarly afflicted parents -- monitoring their children's internet usage -- would explain why your viewpoint was, well, you know.... wrong.
Here, take this with you:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 17:29:07 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. So, if a person following a religious faith commits a sin against the teaching of that faith....they automatically forfeit any right to practice it, or even to claim to be an adherent to its teachings (despite the fact that their failure/sinning can be forgiven)?....or to be protected from discrimination against its followers?
So adulterers can be punished? How severely? Should they be stoned until dead? Perhaps the old Taliban procedure -- cutting off one hand, and the opposite foot -- would be sufficiently lenient for first-time offender/sinners against that particular interpretation of Islam?
Tell us, JackAss. What is your learned theological opinion on this? What about Christianity? Got any edgy, omnipotent judgements to make about their principles?
What about coveting your neighbor's wife?
Or -- more pertinent to YOUR specific situation -- how about coveting thy neighbor's goods (as in money)? Many times on here, you've advocated for a national minimum income ("I want others to support me"). What should be the punishment for that, you f*cking layabout?
Of course, YOU ALREADY ARE being supported almost totally by another; maybe you should recuse yourself from any rulings on that one. I'm anxiously awaiting your edicts with regard to those other pesky behaviors, though...
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 18:53:37 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. So, if a person following a religious faith commits a sin against the teaching of that faith....they automatically forfeit any right to practice it, or even to claim to be an adherent to its teachings (despite the fact that their failure/sinning can be forgiven)?....or to be protected from discrimination against its followers?
So adulterers can be punished? How severely? Should they be stoned until dead? Perhaps the old Taliban procedure -- cutting off one hand, and the opposite foot -- would be sufficiently lenient for first-time offender/sinners against that particular interpretation of Islam?
Tell us, JackAss. What is your learned theological opinion on this? What about Christianity? Got any edgy, omnipotent judgements to make about their principles?
What about coveting your neighbor's wife?
Or -- more pertinent to YOUR specific situation -- how about coveting thy neighbor's goods (as in money)? Many times on here, you've advocated for a national minimum income ("I want others to support me"). What should be the punishment for that, you f*cking layabout?
Of course, YOU ALREADY ARE being supported almost totally by another; maybe you should recuse yourself from any rulings on that one. I'm anxiously awaiting your edicts with regard to those other pesky behaviors, though...
If you commit a sin against your religion and there is a way to be forgiven, that's fine. However to purposely repeatedly commit sins against the religion and not ask for forgiveness (like in this guy's case on a daily basis), no you aren't following the religion you are just trying to use it to game the system. I do believe that if you don't at least attempt a strict adherence to your religion, you should not be able to claim you are part of it to the extent you are a protected class under the law. Hell I don't think religion should be a protected class in the first place, but if it is, it should be strictly enforced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 19:59:21 GMT -5
So, if a person following a religious faith commits a sin against the teaching of that faith....they automatically forfeit any right to practice it, or even to claim to be an adherent to its teachings (despite the fact that their failure/sinning can be forgiven)?....or to be protected from discrimination against its followers?
So adulterers can be punished? How severely? Should they be stoned until dead? Perhaps the old Taliban procedure -- cutting off one hand, and the opposite foot -- would be sufficiently lenient for first-time offender/sinners against that particular interpretation of Islam?
Tell us, JackAss. What is your learned theological opinion on this? What about Christianity? Got any edgy, omnipotent judgements to make about their principles?
What about coveting your neighbor's wife?
Or -- more pertinent to YOUR specific situation -- how about coveting thy neighbor's goods (as in money)? Many times on here, you've advocated for a national minimum income ("I want others to support me"). What should be the punishment for that, you f*cking layabout?
Of course, YOU ALREADY ARE being supported almost totally by another; maybe you should recuse yourself from any rulings on that one. I'm anxiously awaiting your edicts with regard to those other pesky behaviors, though...
If you commit a sin against your religion and there is a way to be forgiven, that's fine. However to purposely repeatedly commit sins against the religion and not ask for forgiveness (like in this guy's case on a daily basis), no you aren't following the religion you are just trying to use it to game the system. I do believe that if you don't at least attempt a strict adherence to your religion, you should not be able to claim you are part of it to the extent you are a protected class under the law. Hell I don't think religion should be a protected class in the first place, but if it is, it should be strictly enforced. Go fuck yourself you fucking judgmental, condascending, obnoxious prick. You don't get to decide how one lives their life and no amount of mental gymnastics changes the fact that Angelo does not get to determine the piety of an individual based on photos he sees on the internet. Fuck, the ego on you in unreal.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 20:12:06 GMT -5
If you commit a sin against your religion and there is a way to be forgiven, that's fine. However to purposely repeatedly commit sins against the religion and not ask for forgiveness (like in this guy's case on a daily basis), no you aren't following the religion you are just trying to use it to game the system. I do believe that if you don't at least attempt a strict adherence to your religion, you should not be able to claim you are part of it to the extent you are a protected class under the law. Hell I don't think religion should be a protected class in the first place, but if it is, it should be strictly enforced. Go fuck yourself you fucking judgmental, condascending, obnoxious prick. You don't get to decide how one lives their life and no amount of mental gymnastics changes the fact that Angelo does not get to determine the piety of an individual based on photos he sees on the internet. Fuck, the ego on you in unreal. I'm not saying I get to determine it, the religion itself has already determined it via their teachings, their books, etc... And while I feel private businesses providing non-essentials should be able to discriminate for any reason should they so choose (though I think that is stupid as it means given up earnings), as long as discrimination is only allowed for a select few, those select few should be held to an absolute higher standard for having a right most people do not have. If we don't get to be equal (in which case because of protected class laws we don't), those with extra rights should have higher scrutiny for them.
|
|
|
Post by Canuklehead on Jun 5, 2018 22:40:26 GMT -5
So what are they doing that makes them not Christian enough for your tastes Angelo?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 5, 2018 23:58:01 GMT -5
So what are they doing that makes them not Christian enough for your tastes Angelo? Well he's mixing fabrics, not following a Christian diet, he has habitual sins, he shaves, he hasn't killed his friends that asked him to worship a different faith, he isn't calling for the destruction of non-christian theocracies, he lets his attorney and daughter wear jewelry and makeup, and more. Sure he may like the overall philosophy of the Christian religions, hell even I like the philosophy of most religions, but I don't go around saying I follow that religion because the rules are fucking insane and I'd be a hypocrite to say I follow something I don't believe in. And besides, as a Christian, if he followed the bibles own teachings in regards to dealing with people who go against your beliefs, he would have baked them a cake before a straight couple's while preaching to them... Mark 2:14-17
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jun 6, 2018 6:54:08 GMT -5
Just read a story about a guy in Memphis who caught two guys robbing his house, they had maybe one, if not two handguns and when they noticed him one ran and the other tried to shoot him, his gun jammed and then he ran. The homeowner proceeded to grab his AK-47, ran outside and killed them both
Now, I have ZERO problem with him going after these guys after they fled. They broke in to his place, tried to take his shit, and worst of all, tried to shoot him. The fact that they were running away and he shot them in the back is not an issue for me, because these two were just going to try this in someone else's home, probably over and over again. And proved they had no problem trying to kill anyone who got in their way. So fuck 'em
No, MY issue is......you can own an AK-47??? Does it have to be semi-auto, or can it be fully automatic? Can it only be on you're premises? Do you have to be ex-military, and be granted permission to bring one back from a tour you got off a killed or captured enemy, or can you be a civi? And if so, where do I get mine? Have we had this conversation before? Am I just having a pre-mature elderly Cybergod moment? Is the fact that I'm asking all these questions going to make you guys suspicious again that I'm comrade question? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 7:36:45 GMT -5
Just read a story about a guy in Memphis who caught two guys robbing his house, they had maybe one, if not two handguns and when they noticed him one ran and the other tried to shoot him, his gun jammed and then he ran. The homeowner proceeded to grab his AK-47, ran outside and killed them both Now, I have ZERO problem with him going after these guys after they fled. They broke in to his place, tried to take his shit, and worst of all, tried to shoot him. The fact that they were running away and he shot them in the back is not an issue for me, because these two were just going to try this in someone else's home, probably over and over again. And proved they had no problem trying to kill anyone who got in their way. So fuck 'em No, MY issue is......you can own an AK-47??? Does it have to be semi-auto, or can it be fully automatic? Can it only be on you're premises? Do you have to be ex-military, and be granted permission to bring one back from a tour you got off a killed or captured enemy, or can you be a civi? And if so, where do I get mine? Have we had this conversation before? Am I just having a pre-mature elderly Cybergod moment? Is the fact that I'm asking all these questions going to make you guys suspicious again that I'm comrade question? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? I can and do legally have an AK-47. But you can't. Not because of anything against you, but because your local politicians don't think you should be allowed to. When my AK-47 was coming up from Connecticut (where it had also been banned) the individual bringing it to me had to notify the Massachusetts State Police that he would be passing through Massachusetts with an AK-47. You live in the most tight ass state in New England when it comes to gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by daywork on Jun 6, 2018 8:45:16 GMT -5
Isn't it just certain makers of the AK banned? I thought I heard it was the Russian and or Israeli ones. One of my employees had one and was always talking about it.
Patsox. Just like any other rifle, it needs to be semi auto. No other special rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 10:39:29 GMT -5
I've got both, an AK and a stripped down one, basically making it a Saiga 7.62 x 39, no?
Both are semi auto. I call mine Da Damaja.
And it still isn't shit compared to my AR's. Like night and day.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jun 7, 2018 6:30:49 GMT -5
I've got both, an AK and a stripped down one, basically making it a Saiga 7.62 x 39, no? Both are semi auto. I call mine Da Damaja. And it still isn't shit compared to my AR's. Like night and day. I would have left that part out
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jun 7, 2018 7:58:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 9:36:00 GMT -5
I've got both, an AK and a stripped down one, basically making it a Saiga 7.62 x 39, no? Both are semi auto. I call mine Da Damaja. And it still isn't shit compared to my AR's. Like night and day. I would have left that part out Of course you would. You don't have one to give a sweet name to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 9:39:01 GMT -5
That SAM 7K pistol at the top of the page looks swwwweeeeeeet.
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Jun 7, 2018 11:02:52 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.) A) I think in general it is a poor business choice to not sell something to people based on your religious beliefs. B) I like your post but I would categorize this as 'gay wedding themed cakes' just not a product they offer. Not an expert in this case, but I would imagine that a straight person ordering a gay themed wedding cake would also be denied service. -- In that scenario, I think they have a consistency leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by vegeta420z on Jun 12, 2018 21:39:55 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.) A) I think in general it is a poor business choice to not sell something to people based on your religious beliefs. B) I like your post but I would categorize this as 'gay wedding themed cakes' just not a product they offer. Not an expert in this case, but I would imagine that a straight person ordering a gay themed wedding cake would also be denied service. -- In that scenario, I think they have a consistency leg to stand on. See the problem with that is Tony's not really straight. he ordered the gay themed wedding cake with a pic of him and his fat hilbilly friend sucking each other off just as an excuse to take all those dirty pics he took in ton the bakery.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 13, 2018 2:03:05 GMT -5
So, that submarine missile launch just outside of Seattle Sunday morning... a show of power by China with what they got from the Submarine hack? Some rogue independent group of hackers showing off a new toy for the highest bidder? A technical malfunction? Crazy crew member?
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jun 13, 2018 6:44:31 GMT -5
Kyle will be sort of happy up north.....if it weren't for SF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 9:07:01 GMT -5
Kyle will be sort of happy up north.....if it weren't for SF. Fuck that... that is worst case scenario for me. Sonoma, Napa, Marin, SF, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara is where 80% of the lunatics live in this State. It's funny because I looked at your map to think of what best case would be for me, and the answer is there is none. That is how shitty the population dynamics of this state are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 9:43:49 GMT -5
Funny how they split the coast line right at long beach.
So in one "area", Orange county, San Diego county...and everything from Bakersfield to Blythe. Lol! Talk about tossing the cream in with the crap!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 10:01:17 GMT -5
Funny how they split the coast line right at long beach. So in one "area", Orange county, San Diego county...and everything from Bakersfield to Blythe. Lol! Talk about tossing the cream in with the crap! This state sucks so bad you can't get away from shitty people no matter how that map is drawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 10:07:46 GMT -5
Funny how they split the coast line right at long beach. So in one "area", Orange county, San Diego county...and everything from Bakersfield to Blythe. Lol! Talk about tossing the cream in with the crap! This state sucks so bad you can't get away from shitty people no matter how that map is drawn. I have been working in some shit spots in South central la lately. I've also been working in some nice beach areas like playa del Rey. Considering these places are like 10-15 minute city street drives away from one another...youd think you were in another country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 10:29:25 GMT -5
It looks really unbalanced economically. I know the populations would all be similar, but it doesn't seem to make sense from a tax and revenue standpoint
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jun 13, 2018 12:14:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 12:36:16 GMT -5
I haven't spent much time in too many other states, but I can't emphasize how much of a divided state this is. Geographically 75% of the state is conservative, but the 25% remaining is ultra liberal. It makes for the weirdest dynamics you can imagine. Nevada is similar, but the liberals are all concentrated in 1 area around Vegas, where in California you have 5-6 areas that are ultra liberal scattered around.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Jun 13, 2018 12:41:36 GMT -5
I haven't spent much time in too many other states, but I can't emphasize how much of a divided state this is. Geographically 75% of the state is conservative, but the 25% remaining is ultra liberal. It makes for the weirdest dynamics you can imagine. Nevada is similar, but the liberals are all concentrated in 1 area around Vegas, where in California you have 5-6 areas that are ultra liberal scattered around. I hate to break it to you...but every state with a major metropolitan area and also farmland had this dynamic. The politics aren't as extreme and crazy, but where I live in Missouri you have KC metro and STL metro that are big blue dots amongst a sea of red. The thing that makes Cali different is enough people vote in the blue areas that it doesn't matter how many vote from the red areas, except for more local stuff. In Missouri, enough of the suburban/subrural areas still go red to make it a battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 13:43:41 GMT -5
I haven't spent much time in too many other states, but I can't emphasize how much of a divided state this is. Geographically 75% of the state is conservative, but the 25% remaining is ultra liberal. It makes for the weirdest dynamics you can imagine. Nevada is similar, but the liberals are all concentrated in 1 area around Vegas, where in California you have 5-6 areas that are ultra liberal scattered around. I hate to break it to you...but every state with a major metropolitan area and also farmland had this dynamic. The politics aren't as extreme and crazy, but where I live in Missouri you have KC metro and STL metro that are big blue dots amongst a sea of red. The thing that makes Cali different is enough people vote in the blue areas that it doesn't matter how many vote from the red areas, except for more local stuff. In Missouri, enough of the suburban/subrural areas still go red to make it a battle. I am not sure any state has 80% of its geography red and 80% of it's vote blue, but I do agree that many states like NV, CO, OR, WA have this imbalance.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Jun 13, 2018 14:18:22 GMT -5
I am not sure any state has 80% of its geography red and 80% of it's vote blue, but I do agree that many states like NV, CO, OR, WA have this imbalance. That's our democracy ain't it? I can carve out 8 counties around where I was born that are all 'red'. The votes combined don't add up to half the votes in Jackson County where KC is. You have a bigger gripe in Cali, because some of the regulatory practices alone are probably damaging. But a lot of it in general is just the general crying that got Trump elected. "Wah wah, nobody listens to us it's not fair we want our voices heard". Essentially the same shit from the left 10 years ago. In my state, you have all these dumbasses in rural areas penning op-eds to the KC Star And St Louis Post Dispatch crying about how it was a liberal scheme out of the two big cities to make our governor resign. They don't understand that they are in the minority of the total population of the state. Most, even those who lean right, aren't so indoctrinated into right wing politics that they still think a guy who's illegally blackmailing his mistress, and then taking illegal money and favors to try to get out of it, and then getting told on for taking illegal campaign money might not be gubernatorial material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 14:25:55 GMT -5
My gripe in California is the policies are made by people who don’t have a clue what goes on in the state. Most people in las Angeles have never traveled 500 miles up to crescent city to understand the dynamics of the logging and fishing industry. It is such a massive and diverse state, keep in mind it is the 5th largest economy in the world... however it is run by 3 cities. Imagine if the decisions for the whole country were made by Texas, California and New York. Look at how many people would be left out. It is too big of a state economically to remain whole in my opinion.
|
|