Cake or No Cake – Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill

[J.E.D]

Didn't you just have an epiphany? I thought you were going to focus on the more important issues of the day.....and fight the liberal attempt to divert from them by talking about gay people.

What's up? Forgot already?

He forgot two gay threads ago.

 

[dblack]

Hey Jesus-freak, bake the stupid fucking cake. It's a cake, not a vow for all eternity before Jesus and God Almighty.

Submit!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey Jesus-freak, bake the stupid fucking cake. It's a cake, not a vow for all eternity before Jesus and God Almighty.

Submit!!!

Do Your Job actually. I know, what a demanding bitch I am eh?

 

[dblack]

Hey Jesus-freak, bake the stupid fucking cake. It's a cake, not a vow for all eternity before Jesus and God Almighty.

Submit!!!

Do Your Job actually. I know, what a demanding bitch I am eh?

Indeed. I find the modern strain of 'liberals' to be deeply authoritarian, with a seemingly endless lust for controlling other people - even their thoughts. It's pretty fucking creepy to be honest.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Submit!!!

Do Your Job actually. I know, what a demanding bitch I am eh?

Indeed. I find the modern strain of 'liberals' to be deeply authoritarian, with a seemingly endless lust for controlling other people - even their thoughts. It's pretty fucking creepy to be honest.

Yep, I know. It really sucks when you have to treat others as equals.

 

[dblack]

Do Your Job actually. I know, what a demanding bitch I am eh?

Indeed. I find the modern strain of 'liberals' to be deeply authoritarian, with a seemingly endless lust for controlling other people - even their thoughts. It's pretty fucking creepy to be honest.

Yep, I know. It really sucks when you have to treat others as equals.

But have you stopped to think about that? Ever? Have you seen just how far things have turned, that we have folks who used to take pride in championing individual freedom of conscience, now eagerly squashing it with authoritarian power?

 

[Listening]

I called her one. And I have a country full of judges and people who disagree with you. Now what?

I have a Constitution that disagrees with you!

Read the 9th Amendment and get back to me.

No need to. The laws have been on the books for decades. See ya.

Don't need to read the constitution ????

Wow.

 

[Listening]

Do Your Job actually. I know, what a demanding bitch I am eh?

Indeed. I find the modern strain of 'liberals' to be deeply authoritarian, with a seemingly endless lust for controlling other people - even their thoughts. It's pretty fucking creepy to be honest.

Yep, I know. It really sucks when you have to treat others as equals.

It really sucks when you are required to do anything.

The government is there to enforce boundaries....not behavior.

Civics.....I can only assume you missed that year.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But have you stopped to think about that? Ever?

Yes.

As for your concerns, if the conditions required to do your job change and you find that you can't, find another job. I can't have everybody individually decided who they will and will not seve in the marketplace. If you serve the public, the rule is serve one serve all, unless you have a damn good reason not to. Jesus says I can't bake a cake for a gay weeding doesn't fly. Jesus says I can't participate in an abortion does, and long as you work for a place that never has to do an abortion.

We don't need pacifist soldiers. If you can't do the job, meaning kill people, then you have to hang out in the rear with the gear but really, you don't belong there at all. I'm going to rewrite the rules of war just so you can sleep at night. Do Your Job and if you can't find one that you can. End of story.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Indeed. I find the modern strain of 'liberals' to be deeply authoritarian, with a seemingly endless lust for controlling other people - even their thoughts. It's pretty fucking creepy to be honest.

Yep, I know. It really sucks when you have to treat others as equals.

It really sucks when you are required to do anything.

The government is there to enforce boundaries....not behavior.

Civics.....I can only assume you missed that year.

Really? Speed limits are Boundaries huh? I'll remember to use that the next time I'm doing 90 in school zone. But officer, the government can only tell me to drive safely, and I'm a good driver so 90 is safest for me. I guess the 30 when flashing sign was just a suggestion by the a government watching out for me eh? I don't actually have to adjust my "behavior" to such a thing? They aren't allowed to make me right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have a Constitution that disagrees with you!

Read the 9th Amendment and get back to me.

No need to. The laws have been on the books for decades. See ya.

Don't need to read the constitution ????

Wow.

Read it, and it doesn't apply in this case. That's why there was no need to discuss it.

 

[Listening]

Yep, I know. It really sucks when you have to treat others as equals.

It really sucks when you are required to do anything.

The government is there to enforce boundaries....not behavior.

Civics.....I can only assume you missed that year.

Really? Speed limits are Boundaries huh? I'll remember to use that the next time I'm doing 90 in school zone. But officer, the government can only tell me to drive safely, and I'm a good driver so 90 is safest for me. I guess the 30 when flashing sign was just a suggestion by the a government watching out for me eh? I don't actually have to adjust my "behavior" to such a thing? They aren't allowed to make me right?

Are you on drugs ?

A speed limit is a boundary.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It really sucks when you are required to do anything.

The government is there to enforce boundaries....not behavior.

Civics.....I can only assume you missed that year.

Really? Speed limits are Boundaries huh? I'll remember to use that the next time I'm doing 90 in school zone. But officer, the government can only tell me to drive safely, and I'm a good driver so 90 is safest for me. I guess the 30 when flashing sign was just a suggestion by the a government watching out for me eh? I don't actually have to adjust my "behavior" to such a thing? They aren't allowed to make me right?

Are you on drugs ?

A speed limit is a boundary.

It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?

 

[dblack]

Really? Speed limits are Boundaries huh? I'll remember to use that the next time I'm doing 90 in school zone. But officer, the government can only tell me to drive safely, and I'm a good driver so 90 is safest for me. I guess the 30 when flashing sign was just a suggestion by the a government watching out for me eh? I don't actually have to adjust my "behavior" to such a thing? They aren't allowed to make me right?

Are you on drugs ?

A speed limit is a boundary.

It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?

Listening was making the distinction between that laws that ban certain actions, and those that compel actions - 'orders' essentially. It's the difference between 'thou shalt not' and 'thou shalt' - between government that tells us what we can't do, and government that tells us what we must do.

 

[bodecea]

I have a Constitution that disagrees with you!

Read the 9th Amendment and get back to me.

No need to. The laws have been on the books for decades. See ya.

The Constitution has been on the books for 230+ years. Begone.

If public accommodation laws are unconstitutional...why not challenge them in court instead of wasting tax-payers' time and money with ANOTHER law?

 

[dblack]

No need to. The laws have been on the books for decades. See ya.

The Constitution has been on the books for 230+ years. Begone.

If public accommodation laws are unconstitutional...why not challenge them in court instead of wasting tax-payers' time and money with ANOTHER law?

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you on drugs ?

A speed limit is a boundary.

It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?

Listening was making the distinction between that laws that ban certain actions, and those that compel actions - 'orders' essentially. It's the difference between 'thou shalt not' and 'thou shalt' - between government that tells us what we can't do, and government that tells us what we must do.

Fine. So 911 tells me that I can't kill the neighbor for his loud music, and the IRS info line says I have to pay my federal taxes. Which one of those proves his point because they both seem to be required of me even if I don't like either answer? In both cases, I'm not doing what I'd like to do actually.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution has been on the books for 230+ years. Begone.

If public accommodation laws are unconstitutional...why not challenge them in court instead of wasting tax-payers' time and money with ANOTHER law?

Sadly, because the Court has already decided. But, despite the fact that I want to see the public accommodations nonsense reversed, I agree that these initiatives aren't going to win legislative victories. All their good for is stirring up debate. Which does have some value, I suppose.

That silly court. Trying to make it so everyone can get on with the business of living even if you are black, or Muslim, or gay, or all three at the same time. Don't they know it would be some much better if when you went to get gas you had to make sure that they allowed your kind there? They just hate freedom I guess.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

So you aren't happy because you cannot legally murder your neighbor for playing loud music? I'd take a closer look at you if I was profiling this board, Painter. You've either been sniffing too many paint fumes or you need psychiatric help. Put down the Karl Marx books. Violence does not become you.

 

[dblack]

It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?

Listening was making the distinction between that laws that ban certain actions, and those that compel actions - 'orders' essentially. It's the difference between 'thou shalt not' and 'thou shalt' - between government that tells us what we can't do, and government that tells us what we must do.

Fine. So 911 tells me that I can't kill the neighbor for his loud music, and the IRS info line says I have to pay my federal taxes. Which one of those proves his point because they both seem to be required of me even if I don't like either answer? In both cases, I'm not doing what I'd like to do actually.

???

I guess you just don't get it. Seriously, do you not see a difference between laws that prohibit certain actions and those that order us to do things? Do you not see why the former offers more freedom, and why the latter is more authoritarian?