51% Of American Muslims Want Sharia... (NOT in All Caps Now..)

[Pumpkin Row]

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

So follow the law but don't follow the law?!? Come on, try again.

You also didn't answer the second part...these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not even close to what I said. I said Jesus is likely telling Christians to follow the laws of your civilization. Christians are not currently in a Jewish civilization that adheres to the laws the pharisees set MANY years ago. What God tells Christians to do in the New Testament are the laws for Christians.

Now you are reciting childish nonsense.

Jesus was doing no such thing.

I doubt you've read the bible, much less understand it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

PumpkinRow, you are like a young soldier in a class of mine who completely misread the text we were reading.

He wanted to say he was "coming at it in a different way."

No, he was wrong, and could not admit it.

You're just as confused as the other person I'm debating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have read the Bible daily since I committed to it at the age of 8 except for time in the Army hospitals when I was unable. If I could listen, the chaplain or the assistant read to me.

You have very little comprehension of what Jesus was saying.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I have read the Bible daily since I committed to it at the age of 8 except for time in the Army hospitals when I was unable. If I could listen, the chaplain or the assistant read to me.

You have very little comprehension of what Jesus was saying.

I comprehend it just fine, I've read the Bible several times, and I read the quote in context just before making the post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have read the Bible daily since I committed to it at the age of 8 except for time in the Army hospitals when I was unable. If I could listen, the chaplain or the assistant read to me.

You have very little comprehension of what Jesus was saying.

I comprehend it just fine, I've read the Bible several times, and I read the quote in context just before making the post.

That is your opinion. It is not context, merely you avoiding saying that you are wrong. So keep praying and pondering.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I have read the Bible daily since I committed to it at the age of 8 except for time in the Army hospitals when I was unable. If I could listen, the chaplain or the assistant read to me.

You have very little comprehension of what Jesus was saying.

I comprehend it just fine, I've read the Bible several times, and I read the quote in context just before making the post.

That is your opinion. It is not context, merely you avoiding saying that you are wrong. So keep praying and pondering.

I don't need to say I'm wrong, because I'm not.

 

[Seawytch]

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

 

[Seawytch]

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

So follow the law but don't follow the law?!? Come on, try again.

You also didn't answer the second part...these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not even close to what I said. I said Jesus is likely telling Christians to follow the laws of your civilization. Christians are not currently in a Jewish civilization that adheres to the laws the pharisees set MANY years ago. What God tells Christians to do in the New Testament are the laws for Christians.

He is "likely"? You're supposing? That's not how it reads. He seems pretty clear when he says: “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”

And it's not like that's the only verse:

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—" (John 10:35)

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matthew 15:3)

If Christians don't have to follow OT law and there is nothing in the NT like this:

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Does that mean they are no longer restricted by Christians?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never have to name the Regressive Left by name, they're always more than willing to jump in and self-identify for me.

No, you won't name them because you're a coward who doesn't want to debate your accusations directly with the people you're accusing.

Unlike most of you, I find this issue painful and pointless. Coward I may be, but cynical to the point of yawning at your reply. Vindictive and nasty, I am not, either. We need to transcend these mind games and fix our political system instead of playing this infantile blame game.

You'll note that, just as I described, and right on cue, he jumped in and self-identified for me. This happens constantly. I've reached a point where I believe they literally can't help themselves.

My own version of the blame game is that it's the narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends who are the problem. They are louder, nastier, and far more willing to say and do pretty much anything for political advantage. It's them against everyone else.

The rest of us - the majority - have to deal with the effects of their behaviors.
.

I did no such thing.

I've asked you multiple times to prove with any evidence whatsoever that I am one of these so-called regressive leftists you babble on about,

and the sum total of your evidence is zero.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Redfish]

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

which was passed by republicans over the filibusters of democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

which was passed by republicans over the filibusters of democrats.

No, which was passed by liberals over the filibusters of conservatives.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

 

[hazlnut]

So why are we importing the tool of our own nation's demise?

Welcome to Obama's 'Fundamental Change'! Unfortunately there are a LOT of Americans (Liberals) whose light hasn't come on yet.

Obama admittedly was / has:

- Sired by an Anti-American, anti-colonialist father who wanted the US eliminated as a world power and influence...

- Tutored by Communist Frank Marshall Davis...

- Studied Socialist Saul Alinsky - even quoted him during an Inauguration speech

- Mentored for decades by a hate-spewing racist anti-American 'pastor',

- Friends with a domestic terrorist who bombed his own country and killed cops

- Declared he would stand with Muslims if the political winds blow ugly

- Declared the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam (Convert to Islam or die, as in no future for YOU...sound familiar)

- Armed the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood

- Armed Al Qaeda

- Dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between a dictator we put into power - WHO WAS JUST BEGINNING TO HELP US COMBAT TERRORISTS IN NTHRN AFRCIA - and Al Qaeida, perpetrators of 9/11/01 and 9/11/12, to help Al Qaeida kill Qadaffi and take over their own nation as a safe haven....all this at a time when Obama was declaring Al Qaeida was on the run!

- Supplied, Armed, Trained, & Protected ISIS, dropped leaflets to them, after the Paris attack, to warn them that French and Russian bombers were coming to drop bombs on the ISIS Black Market oil facilities Obama was protecting that funded 50% of their terrorist activities - to include the Paris attack (can you say 'aiding and abetting the enemy'?!)

- Mocked Americans over their concerns for our national security and their safety, even after he admitted his 'vetting process' was virtually non-existent - claiming all they had to fear after the Paris attacks were 'widows and orphans' - only to have the terrorist to whom his administration gave a visa murder 12 Americans in California

Obama has sacrificed American lives for his personal political benefit / re-election. He has defended Islam by blaming a video for the needless murder of 4 Americans, by calling a terrorist attack a case of 'workplace violence', by sending out his AG to threaten Americans with punishment if they exercised their right to Free Speech, by having his DHS openly declare Conservatives (who he called his 'enemies' and whom he used his IRS to target) greater threats than Islamic extremists, & has lectured the very same Americans he has bullied and vilified who are being targeted by Radical Islamists.


Obama has failed to protect Iraq, a nation our nation's soldiers had liberated at great cost, by allowing ISIS to freely enter Iraq without opposition, while he supplied/armed/trained/protected them and called them a 'JV Team'.



Despite admitting his vetting process is virtually non-existent...

Despite his FBI already spread beyond the breaking point investigating 1,000 cases involving ISIS threats in the US...

Despite ISIS declaring they are going to infiltrate the refugees...

Despite his CIA warning ISIS IS infiltrating the 'refugees' coming in...

Despite more successful terrorist attacks having been carried out under his administration than any in our nation's history...

Despite the American body count directly tied to his policies and actions Obama CONTINUES to bring in hundreds of un-vetted Muslims from a civil war-torn nation - a war between terrorists Obama has supported and a dictator - that is the home base for ISIS!


Arizona, Tennessee, Texas, California, Benghazi, Florida...while the bodies keep piling up Obama's DHS is declaring the enemy is AMERICANS and works to 'ban' the words 'Jihad' and 'Sharia' as Obama refuses to say the words 'Radical Islam' and 'Islamic extremists' because 'it means we are at war with all of Islam'.


Why is he still President? Nothing to see here...move along.


You are being redirected...

When you pull numbers from you ass, make them half-way believable.


What percentage of 'Christians' practice Levitican law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

 

[easyt65]

When you pull numbers from you ass, make them half-way believable.

That sentence was all I needed to read because it showed you attributed the numbers to ME instead of the news agency that reported it, which also means you didn't bother to READ what was in the article. Refusing to read things....you have to potential to be a great Liberal politician.

 

[Seawytch]

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

No it doesn't. The legal zoom link says exactly what I said, that you were wrong when you stated that businesses could deny service at any time for any reason. After you got called out for being wrong, you amended your claim to "if they lie about it". Yes, they can lie, but that doesn't change the fact that they are prevented by a law that was passed by Congress and found Constitutional by the SCOTUS. (Yet another thing you were wrong about)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

No it doesn't. The legal zoom link says exactly what I said, that you were wrong when you stated that businesses could deny service at any time for any reason. After you got called out for being wrong, you amended your claim to "if they lie about it". Yes, they can lie, but that doesn't change the fact that they are prevented by a law that was passed by Congress and found Constitutional by the SCOTUS. (Yet another thing you were wrong about)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, like I said, they can, as long as there's a different given reason when it's someone who fills the listed criteria. At list point, you're just saying "Yes, you did" and I'm saying "No, I didn't". Really, you're wasting lots of time. I happen to have lots of time, but that doesn't mean I want to spend it on a back and forth with you.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.