Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've know gay people who've lost their jobs because of homophobes, I've know gay people who've been beaten up because of homophobes.
"Waaah, I had to bake a cake after I offered to bake a cake and I got money for baking the cake and made a hefty profit" is NOT that much of a burden.
The article meets of all your objections. Your "nuh uh" response is laughable, as is your name calling, like a seven year old who has been corrected.Nope, you don't get the call. Anyone can read your code words. Your denial is code that you do use code words.JakeStarkey said, "If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.My remarks need no explaining to anyone. If a person has doubts, go back and read them. If you have trouble with the Commission, compost, I don't care.
Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this."
Explain the highlighted portions. What code words have been used, and their definition, along with quotes that contain those words from something I, sassy and onyx have said. If you can't provide this, than you are a common slanderer.
Uh huh. Pretend there are code words. Refuse to identify them. Claim that when others deny the existence of your imaginary code words they are using code words.
Very sophisticated -if you are a seven year old.
Nonsense.NOt really. Neither amendment has ever been an absolute.
It's why you can't own that machine gun you've had your eye on
Who says you can't own a machine gun?
The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!
See #86
See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.
Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.
If you are homosexual, you should not work for homophobes. Sounds like common sense to me.
Seems more like a cultural problem, not a political one.
Do you want a cultural revolution instigated by the ruling class?
This is not about the article. This is about your refusal to provide proof to back up your accusations against members here.The article meets of all your objections. Your "nuh uh" response is laughable, as is your name calling, like a seven year old who has been corrected.Nope, you don't get the call. Anyone can read your code words. Your denial is code that you do use code words.JakeStarkey said, "If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.My remarks need no explaining to anyone. If a person has doubts, go back and read them. If you have trouble with the Commission, compost, I don't care.
Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this."
Explain the highlighted portions. What code words have been used, and their definition, along with quotes that contain those words from something I, sassy and onyx have said. If you can't provide this, than you are a common slanderer.
Uh huh. Pretend there are code words. Refuse to identify them. Claim that when others deny the existence of your imaginary code words they are using code words.
Very sophisticated -if you are a seven year old.
That's like saying if you are black, you shouldn't work for racists, isn't it?
Actually, what it is is an application of business law. Businesses are public accommodations. If you offer a service, you have to provide it to anyone who can pay for it.
As established by the Maoist government.
Kind of my point. America does not need a government cultural revolution.
You "nuh uh" says everything, compost. We are all held responsible for what we say and what we do. If you meet the article's concern, as you do, then wear it. Proudly.This is not about the article. This is about your refusal to provide proof to back up your accusations against members here.The article meets of all your objections. Your "nuh uh" response is laughable, as is your name calling, like a seven year old who has been corrected.Nope, you don't get the call. Anyone can read your code words. Your denial is code that you do use code words.JakeStarkey said, "If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.My remarks need no explaining to anyone. If a person has doubts, go back and read them. If you have trouble with the Commission, compost, I don't care.
Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this."
Explain the highlighted portions. What code words have been used, and their definition, along with quotes that contain those words from something I, sassy and onyx have said. If you can't provide this, than you are a common slanderer.
Uh huh. Pretend there are code words. Refuse to identify them. Claim that when others deny the existence of your imaginary code words they are using code words.
Very sophisticated -if you are a seven year old.
We had that revolution 50 years ago... try to keep up.
I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash
My remark was regarding code words. That was part of Chairman Castro's remarks, was it not?See page 122 on the remarks of Chairman Castro that were quoted in the OP. Not all the committee agrees with Castro, happily. Thanks for the silly remark on the news source that links the actual report. The report itself is a tedious read, but you might enjoy the Peaceful Coexistence Reports at the end of each segment.All religions are included. Or they were, the Commission is attempting to exclude Christians by claiming they are phobics. You are OK with one group of people being picked out and vilified ?Yeah, you guys are all about freedom of religion, as long as the religion is christianity.
The Civil Rights Commission wants all religions to be included.
Also, they don't want any religion controlling the running of the country or interfering with anyone's Constitutional/legal rights.
Too much of a concept for some of you.
Did you read the report or did you only read what your silly right wing news source told you the report said?
Can you cite the page from this two hundred plus page report that "vilifies" or "excludes" Christians?
Page 122 does not support your contention that the report "excludes" or "vilifies" Christians. Where is the page of the REPORT that does what you claim.
If Mao and Trotsky were for civil liberties regardless of race or religion or ethnicity, then good on them.We had that revolution 50 years ago... try to keep up.
Do you want another?
The things you advocate for are spot on with the beliefs of Mao and Trotsky.
Are you keeping up with history, or is this just a part of history you want to repeat itself?
If you are not, then bad on you.
Once compost complies with this, when we can discuss code words.My remark was regarding code words. That was part of Chairman Castro's remarks, was it not?See page 122 on the remarks of Chairman Castro that were quoted in the OP. Not all the committee agrees with Castro, happily. Thanks for the silly remark on the news source that links the actual report. The report itself is a tedious read, but you might enjoy the Peaceful Coexistence Reports at the end of each segment.All religions are included. Or they were, the Commission is attempting to exclude Christians by claiming they are phobics. You are OK with one group of people being picked out and vilified ?
Did you read the report or did you only read what your silly right wing news source told you the report said?
Can you cite the page from this two hundred plus page report that "vilifies" or "excludes" Christians?
Page 122 does not support your contention that the report "excludes" or "vilifies" Christians. Where is the page of the REPORT that does what you claim.
You made the claim that Christianity was excluded and vilified. Cite the page of the report that excludes and vilifies Christians.
If Mao and Trotsky were for civil liberties regardless of race or religion or ethnicity, then good on them.
Onyx, you make Bold Assertions but offer no proof. Mao and Trotsky's "beliefs" about civil liberties of course did not produce "more control and less liberty"; their actions did. You have not shown us the American gulags and secret police working on behalf of civil liberties in America. So, do so, and we wait with bated breath.If Mao and Trotsky were for civil liberties regardless of race or religion or ethnicity, then good on them.
Their beliefs for creating equality and freedom actually produced more control and less liberty. If you share in the methods, you will end up getting the same socialist oriented totalitarian state that Mao had. The US already surpassed fascist Italy and the Soviet Union under collectivist ideologies like modern liberalism. By assigning the responsibility of population control to the state, you create a two fold problem. Not only is someones liberty taken away in favor for someone else, but the state also becomes more authoritarian and controlling in the process. Instead, if you influence societal culture rather than instigating population control, the evil state no longer expands in power, and civil liberties are maintained for both parties equally.
Nonsense.Who says you can't own a machine gun?
The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!
See #86
See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.
Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.
How arrogant you are to believe that our governance and way of life should subject to the life times and of 1789. Such is not to be expected, and what happened after seemed inevitable.Nonsense.The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!
See #86
See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.
Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.
Nonsense nothing. The model required three equal branches of government. Marbury v. Madison granted the SCOTUS in 1803 the extra-equal power of judicial review and final disposition, something it did not have under the Constitution signed 1797, nor the Articles of Confederation ratified 1781.
Democrats are conducting a war on America and anyone who gets in their way.STILL trying to distract from the fact that they were recently exposed - through the use of their own words and emails - as being anti-Semitic, racist, sexist homophobes, the libs - specifically one of Barry's own appointees - has launched an attack against Christians, claiming 'Religious Liberty' is a code word for what libs have proven THEMSELVES to be - 'Racist, Sexist homophobes'!
Liberals are making the case that if your religious beliefs offend others then you must surrender those beliefs so as not to 'infringe' on others.
Obama Appointee: Religious Liberty Is Code Word for ‘Racism, Sexism, Homophobia’
The Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) attacked proponents of religious liberty in a recent statement, suggesting that it is simply a justification for bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.
The Obama-appointed chairman, Martin R. Castro, stated that the “phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any form of intolerance.”
----------------------
"In its “Findings and Recommendations,” the report sided firmly with anti-discrimination laws over religious liberty, declaring that civil rights protections ensuring nondiscrimination are of “preeminent importance” in American jurisprudence, whereas religious exemptions “significantly infringe upon these civil rights.”
In his powerfully worded dissent to that decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the majority decision was “indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.”
“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment,” Roberts wrote. “The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”
Obama's pick reflects the disregard Obama has for the Constitution and Rule of law. As Liberals load the USSC with it's picks we will see more and more judgments based on Liberal ideology, agendas, and WILL and less and less based on Constitutional-based judgment!
Obama Appointee: Religious Liberty Is Code Word for ‘Racism, Sexism, Homophobia’
