Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes folks, Where's my keys really is that stupid. Which seems to explain why he can't find his keys.

Who said I can't find my keys?

And... Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes folks, Where's my keys really is that stupid. Which seems to explain why he can't find his keys.

Who said I can't find my keys?

And... Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Jesus told me. Except, I didn't believe him. So he sent me to this thread and told me shame on me for doubting him.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Amazing how it's the 21st century, and now we have people actually arguing in SUPPORT of discrimination? Wtf is going on?

People have always argued in favor of traits of nature which promote viability. Only the idiots have ever claimed otherwise. You've just likely been distracted by the idiocy.

But... In fairness to you, that's only because you're mired in it.

Take away the long-winded spin from you're post and we're left with "yes I want discrimination."

Discriminate: recognize a distinction; differentiate; discretion.

Discretion: the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

Discrimination is a critical function of survival. Remove the means to do so and survival is rendered down from unlikely to IMPOSSIBLE.

That you deny this, only FURTHER demonstrates the absolutely certainty, that what you represent is: THE PROBLEM!

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want in this country. That sucks man. It must be hard to lose over and over and over to gays and brown people wanting to have rights. I hope you feel better soon!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want

What type of discrimination do I want?

(Reader, you'll find that the above cited contributor will NOW become fascinated by ANYTHING beside this discussion. But that's only because it has succumbed to its own idiocy, wherein it highlighted the specificity, which its argument simply can NOT withstand. Sadly... at best it will return to offer some feckless obfuscation... before folding into its customary humiliation.

Such is the nature of evil, wherein such fraudulently advances deceit, as a means to influence you, which it believes to be IGNORANT.)

 

[TheOldSchool]

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want

What type of discrimination do I want?

You've been posting in a thread and you don't even know what it's about?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want

What type of discrimination do I want?

You've been posting in a thread and you don't even know what it's about?

LOL! So despite your having declared that you have specific knowledge relevant to the 'kind of discrimination that I want', you are unable to inform the reader of the kind of discrimination that I want.

ROFL! I say it here and it comes out THERE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[OKTexas]

Amazing how it's the 21st century, and now we have people actually arguing in SUPPORT of discrimination? Wtf is going on?

Because you folks are trying to destroy the rights people have to express personal preference, base on invented rights also based on personal preference. You can't have it both ways.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want

What type of discrimination do I want?

You've been posting in a thread and you don't even know what it's about?

LOL! So despite your having declared that you have specific knowledge relevant to the 'kind of discrimination that I want', you are unable to inform the reader of what kind of discrimination that I want.

ROFL! I say it here and it comes out THERE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You are insane. You don't even know what thread you're posting in.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unfortunately the courts and the constitution disagree with the type of discrimination you want

What type of discrimination do I want?

You've been posting in a thread and you don't even know what it's about?

LOL! So despite your having declared that you have specific knowledge relevant to the 'kind of discrimination that I want', you are unable to inform the reader of what kind of discrimination that I want.

ROFL! I say it here and it comes out THERE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You are insane. You don't even know what thread you're posting in.

OH! The coveted RE-CONCESSION! How sweet. (I love it when they grovel...)

Your RE-CONCESSION is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was giving this a lot of thought

So you say. Let's see what you said.

I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves.

It does, believe it or not. You can't take away the freedom of someone to follow their moral conscience.

I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves.

Nice catch.

The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity.

It isn't so much one religion versus another in this issue, its religion vs secularism. And secularism is winning. The religious have no leaders in America.

Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church.

Not just freedom to associate with our church, but with anyone we choose. For example, if I was a restaurateur, and a gay couple comes in and wishes to eat in my establishment, I would gladly say "right this way, here is your table and your menu."

On the flip side, if that same couple walked in and asked me to cater their wedding, I would say "No, I don't cater. And I wouldn't want to associate with something with which I believe is wrong. Here is a phone book, feel free to browse."

What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race?

Discriminating against someone because of their race is a crime. You can think it is okay, but you are obligated by law to treat them equally. However, if your religious texts specifically point out that one form of marriage is sacrosanct over the other, then naturally condoning the other would be a sin according to your religion. Big difference between being gay and being black or white. You don't know who is gay.

Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

Some can be. Others aren't. If a law forces you to oblige something your religion deems a sin, that means your freedom to adhere to the tenets of your faith has been compromised, and consequently your freedom of religion has been infringed upon.

However, on the other hand, your religion can call for not discriminating against people at all, in that case you have no issue and can freely obey the law to the full extent. There is no religious basis in Christianity for discriminating against blacks, but plenty of evidence in the Bible to suggest to the contrary for gays and homosexuals, when being forced to participate in their wedding ceremonies, that is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes folks, Where's my keys really is that stupid. Which seems to explain why he can't find his keys.

You can't seem to find a cogent argument.

 

[Conservative65]

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

 

[Conservative65]

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Is the privately owned bakery giving away cakes for free?

Neither was the homo bakers refusing to bake a cake because they didn't agree with the message it was sending. Difference is the homo bakers won't be held to the same standard as the Christian one.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

 

[Conservative65]

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

What you fail to understand is an organization like that, which I don't believe should exist either, would never be allowed to happen. It would, by it's name only, be considered discriminatory. However, let the W be replaced with a something designed to specifically benefit blacks and it's perfectly OK to the same ones that would call an NAAWP or United White College Fund racist or discriminatory.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

What you fail to understand is an organization like that, which I don't believe should exist either, would never be allowed to happen. It would, by it's name only, be considered discriminatory. However, let the W be replaced with a something designed to specifically benefit blacks and it's perfectly OK to the same ones that would call an NAAWP or United White College Fund racist or discriminatory.

You actually think it would never be allowed to happen? You could trademark the name right now in 10 minutes and start asking for money.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

yes

the US government cannot and will not force the naacp to give a scholarship to a non black or hispanic

Would you like to form the NAAWP? Because then congratulations, as a private organization, you would be able to give away money to whoever the hell you want. Want to give only to white people? Congrats get on it.

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Well, you see, the libturds invented this fiction called a "public business" which allowed them to narrow the definition of "private" to the point where it's practically meaningless. A "public business" is private property, so they have to go through these mental gymnastics to claim that it isn't really private property because it sells to "the public," meaning everyone, even if the owner chooses not to sell to everyone.

Understand?

I guess they do sell to private persons so that makes it a private to private transaction. Where is the public involved?

 

[Conservative65]

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

No

When is the United Negro College Fund going to be forced to give scholarships to a white person?

Read post #5 rube

What you fail to understand is an organization like that, which I don't believe should exist either, would never be allowed to happen. It would, by it's name only, be considered discriminatory. However, let the W be replaced with a something designed to specifically benefit blacks and it's perfectly OK to the same ones that would call an NAAWP or United White College Fund racist or discriminatory.

You actually think it would never be allowed to happen? You could trademark the name right now in 10 minutes and start asking for money.

In 11 minutes, every race pimp from coast to coast would be doing whatever they had to do using the race pimp in the White House to fight it. Never said it wouldn't be tried just not allowed to exist.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?

Hey ERNIE, Is that private business trying to conduct their business in a private, controlled community? Or is that private business trying to do business in the open marketplace?

A "Christian" such as you, needs to think twice about opening a business when you know you are looking to discriminate against someone at some time.

In the case of the pizza shop, they actually ASKED for all the grief they got, Then they shut the business down and will see more money from you assholes giving them money than they have earned in the entire time they have been selling pizza.

Maybe that' what shitty run Christian business's should do all the time. Cry about how they had to do business with gays, put up a go fund me page and retire on your money. LMAO.

I guess if they are going to discriminate then that business is not trying to sell to the whole public as you claim.

 

[dblack]

Duped post