BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Curried Goats]

He is being asked to work at an event he finds sinful.

No he wasn't. He was asked to bake a cake, something he started a business to do.

Why force him to work in this one instance when plenty of others are out there to take up the slack?

Doesn't that same logic apply to racists? If someone decided being racist was part of their religion would you be okay with them denying service to black people then?

Commerce doesn't override free exercise in this case.

Sure it does. Opening and operating a business is a privilege. It requires a business license. Its not free. It comes with responsibilities. Asking you to do the thing you started a business to do can not rational be argued to violate your religion.

 

[martybegan]

No he wasn't. He was asked to bake a cake, something he started a business to do.

Doesn't that same logic apply to racists? If someone decided being racist was part of their religion would you be okay with them denying service to black people then?

Sure it does. Opening and operating a business is a privilege. It requires a business license. Its not free. It comes with responsibilities. Asking you to do the thing you started a business to do can not rational be argued to violate your religion.

He was contracted to bake a wedding cake, something he doesn't think same sex people can perform. he also doesn't do Halloween cakes.

race isn't sexuality. Also it's about the act of marriage, in a ceremony he believes is sinful.

Making a living is a right. To deny a person their preferred livelihood over one transaction is idiotic. Business being a "privilege" is bullshit.

This is all about you getting a 1" hard on about fucking over people you don't like, nothing more.

 

[Marener]

All this saying the same thing and being wrong about it. You want gender to equal sexuality, and you justify it on the back end.

You want race to be the same as sexuality and it is clearly not.

You can’t explain why it’s wrong. It’s about gender. The discrimination is on the basis of gender. One gender can marry a woman. One gender can’t. The state doesn’t ask what your sexual orientation is. They ask your gender. If you’re the wrong gender, no marriage.

How can you say it’s not about gender when that is very specifically the basis for whether you’re allowed to marry or not?

You don’t provide logic. You just say it is because you say so. You don’t respond to my argument with a counter argument. You just say it’s wrong.

 

[martybegan]

You can’t explain why it’s wrong. It’s about gender. The discrimination is on the basis of gender. One gender can marry a woman. One gender can’t. The state doesn’t ask what your sexual orientation is. They ask your gender. If you’re the wrong gender, no marriage.

How can you say it’s not about gender when that is very specifically the basis for whether you’re allowed to marry or not?

You don’t provide logic. You just say it is because you say so. You don’t respond to my argument with a counter argument. You just say it’s wrong.

I explained, you just don't like and believe my explanation. You think its about gender when it isn't, it's about sexuality.

I provided my logic, you don't like it. You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Typical SJW in that you can't deal with that.

 

[Marener]

I explained, you just don't like and believe my explanation. You think its about gender when it isn't, it's about sexuality.

I provided my logic, you don't like it. You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Typical SJW in that you can't deal with that.

Your “explanation” is barely able to be considered an explanation. But not only that, it’s the same explanation that was used to ban interracial marriage.

A fact which you deny.

One gender can marry a man. One gender can’t. That’s not equal protection. It doesn’t matter if the situation is mirrored with the other gender. It’s irrelevant. It remains a fact that the ability to marry a man would depend on whether the state decided that is something your gender could do. Discrimination isn’t acceptable because you’re discriminating both ways. That “separate but equal” logic was struck down ages ago but here you are pulling it out again.

You don’t have logic. It’s all just motivated reasoning driving you to treat similar situations differently to reach the desired conclusion.

You and Scalia are both the same. Both of you would have easily voted against Loving.

 

[martybegan]

Your “explanation” is barely able to be considered an explanation. But not only that, it’s the same explanation that was used to ban interracial marriage.

A fact which you deny.

One gender can marry a man. One gender can’t. That’s not equal protection. It doesn’t matter if the situation is mirrored with the other gender. It’s irrelevant. It remains a fact that the ability to marry a man would depend on whether the state decided that is something your gender could do. Discrimination isn’t acceptable because you’re discriminating both ways. That “separate but equal” logic was struck down ages ago but here you are pulling it out again.

You don’t have logic. It’s all just motivated reasoning driving you to treat similar situations differently to reach the desired conclusion.

You and Scalia are both the same. Both of you would have easily voted against Loving.

Again, I see race as warranting equal consideration but not sexuality. I can and do think Loving is OK and Obergfell went too far.

 

[Marener]

Again, I see race as warranting equal consideration but not sexuality. I can and do think Loving is OK and Obergfell went too far.

Races did have equal consideration with interracial marriage bans, based on your logic.

 

[Augustine_]

The FBI is completely out of control.

BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door - Could Face Year in Federal Prison | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

11 pro-life activists were arrested this month for holding a prayer vigil and singing hymns at the door of the abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Toss the old hag in the brig

 

[martybegan]

Races did have equal consideration with interracial marriage bans, based on your logic.

The bans were unconstitutional once the 14th amendment was passed.

 

[schmidlap]

Stay under your rock.

If you are unable to document any instances of law enforcement ignoring your bombing and arson incidents, I understand.

I prefer to deal with documented reality.

The topic concerns a charge that "patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest."

 

[Roudy]

If you need to pretend that, you will.

Discriminating against customers based upon their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or other personal factor that is irrelevant to the commercial transaction is a very poor business practice.

Returning to the topic, federal charging documents indicate clinic staff and patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest.

That's illegal.

Illegal is legal if you’re a Democrat.

 

[martybegan]

If you are unable to document any instances of law enforcement ignoring your bombing and arson incidents, I understand.

I prefer to deal with documented reality.

The topic concerns a charge that "patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest."

Spectrum much?

 

[Marener]

The bans were unconstitutional once the 14th amendment was passed.

Says the liberal Warren court. But your logic which mirrors Scalia would have called that judicial overreach. Your logic says the equal protection required by the 14th amendment isn’t violated by interracial marriage bans. After all, your logic says that the races are treated equally with these bans.

 

[martybegan]

Says the liberal Warren court. But your logic which mirrors Scalia would have called that judicial overreach. Your logic says the equal protection required by the 14th amendment isn’t violated by interracial marriage bans. After all, your logic says that the races are treated equally with these bans.

The Warren court overreached on Roe, not on Loving.

I separate race and sexuality as well as not considering this a gender issue. You say sexuality=gender=race.

 

[Marener]

The Warren court overreached on Roe, not on Loving.

I separate race and sexuality as well as not considering this a gender issue. You say sexuality=gender=race.

Do you deny that your logic dictates that races are treated equally with interracial marriage bans?

Because it does.

 

[martybegan]

Do you deny that your logic dictates that races are treated equally with interracial marriage bans?

Because it does.

No, it doesn't because again race does not equal sexuality, and gender has nothing to do with this.

 

[schmidlap]

Illegal is legal if you’re a Democrat.

You are confused. The law is non-partisan

It should be enforced when anyone keeps patients from entering a clinic, verbally harasses them, and physically assaulting them - without any discrimination by the police based upon the political affiliation of the accused or the victims.

Presumably, the police did not check anyone's political affiliation before enforcing the law.

Do you have credible evidence to the contrary?

 

[Marener]

No, it doesn't because again race does not equal sexuality, and gender has nothing to do with this.

Your logic says races were treated equally with interracial marriage bans. A black person cant marry a white person and that is mirrored for a white people who can’t marry a black person. You claim that is equal treatment when it comes to gender.

What’s the difference?

 

[schmidlap]

Spectrum much?

Is it you position that the police should not enforce the law when someone prevents patients from entering a clinic, harasses them, and physically assaults them?

Why do you become enraged at the police enforcing the law?

 

[martybegan]

Your logic says races were treated equally with interracial marriage bans. A black person cant marry a white person and that is mirrored for a white people who can’t marry a black person. You claim that is equal treatment when it comes to gender.

What’s the difference?

No, because the ban was about race.

If you can't figure out the difference between race and sexuality, that's on you.