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.
You slimy bastard, I am not for changing the Constitution, I wouldn't mind it but that's not the point. You keep trying to rescue your position by shifting all over the place. The subject is businesses being forced to PARTICIPATE in things they don't want. Race and religion is protected by way of the Constitution so it would need to be changed IF THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.Sexual orientation isn't in the Constitution. Try to pay attention.That's not what I said Skull Pussy. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.
You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution
The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.
So now it's not impinging on the freedom you say you love so much to force a racist to serve Blacks but it is an impingement to force religious people to serve gays
Seems like you like to cherry pick your freedoms
You are arguing that people should be able ro refuse service for any reason because THAT"S FREEDOM!
If you want to do that then yes you have to change uiyohe constitution
Of is freedom to you just denying service to gays?
Auctually this is not true. I am an ordained minister and I can refuse to marry anybody for any reason. As a minister I am exempt from PA laws.Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.
The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.
Equal, as defined by leftists. Two mn are not equal to a man and a woman. Do you even know how you were born?punishWell considering they don't get
First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.
And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.
And then you go with slippery slope.
Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.
And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.
really?
It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?
Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine
Equal protection is not a power of government, it is a limit on government
100% wrong. Equal protection gives the government the power to enforce laws that provide equal protection.
This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.yep, it's not about the cake, its about fucking over the people they don't like.What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..
This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.yep, it's not about the cake, its about fucking over the people they don't like.What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..
.
And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.
The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.
Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.
So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
Well considering they don't get
First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.
And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.
And then you go with slippery slope.
Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.
Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.
In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question
I am not ignoring your arguments, I am pointing out that your proposed solutions would basically lead to anarchy.
Government not forcing citizens to do business with each other would lead to anarchy? Wow, what a leap. How did you accomplish that feat?
Imagine a row of stores selling sandwiches each with its own rules on who can enter and buy one.
That's anarchy.
Why? You go down a row now and look at the displays to assess ingredients, prices, quality, the menu ...
And talk about argument ad absurdum. There are like three businesses in the country that don't want to do business with anyone who will buy. That's why liberals have to work so hard to find them and then they can't seem to find anything except people who don't want to participate in gay weddings.
As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, even in the South in the 50s government had to pass laws restricting business with blacks because business owners wanted the money. And again, the Montgomery system, quasi government, opposed the rules forcing their best customers to the back and to stand. They knew where their bread was buttered. Yet you refer to an absurd scenario where every shop has different rules?
Again as you also ignored, the threat of granting that power is doing far more damage to our liberty than the rare cases someone wants to discriminate. The frivolous lawsuits alone are so financially destructive
What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.
What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?
This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.yep, it's not about the cake, its about fucking over the people they don't like.What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..
.
So....you don't think businesses should have to follow business laws in the state they are licensed in?You slimy bastard, I am not for changing the Constitution, I wouldn't mind it but that's not the point. You keep trying to rescue your position by shifting all over the place. The subject is businesses being forced to PARTICIPATE in things they don't want. Race and religion is protected by way of the Constitution so it would need to be changed IF THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.Sexual orientation isn't in the Constitution. Try to pay attention.That's not what I said Skull Pussy. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution
The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.
So now it's not impinging on the freedom you say you love so much to force a racist to serve Blacks but it is an impingement to force religious people to serve gays
Seems like you like to cherry pick your freedoms
You are arguing that people should be able ro refuse service for any reason because THAT"S FREEDOM!
If you want to do that then yes you have to change uiyohe constitution
Of is freedom to you just denying service to gays?
Goddamn you are dense.
punishProve it.
Well considering they don't get
You don't understand what due process is obviously.
When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.
Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.
Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.
Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.
That is the door you are opening
First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.
And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.
And then you go with slippery slope.
Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.
And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.
really?
It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?
Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine
Equal protection is not a power of government, it is a limit on government
You slimy bastard, I am not for changing the Constitution, I wouldn't mind it but that's not the point. You keep trying to rescue your position by shifting all over the place. The subject is businesses being forced to PARTICIPATE in things they don't want. Race and religion is protected by way of the Constitution so it would need to be changed IF THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.Sexual orientation isn't in the Constitution. Try to pay attention.That's not what I said Skull Pussy. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution
The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.
So now it's not impinging on the freedom you say you love so much to force a racist to serve Blacks but it is an impingement to force religious people to serve gays
Seems like you like to cherry pick your freedoms
You are arguing that people should be able ro refuse service for any reason because THAT"S FREEDOM!
If you want to do that then yes you have to change uiyohe constitution
Of is freedom to you just denying service to gays?
Goddamn you are dense.
exactly right
I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?
There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.
So when you get a license to drive, you become a civil servant? When you get a business license, you become a civil servant. You get a liquor license and you become a public servant.
That is stretching the issue to force religious compliance and I believe that infringes on religious freedom.
The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.
Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.
and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.
So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.
If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.
So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.
Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.
So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.
So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.
So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.
The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.
Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.
So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.
So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.
The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.
'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'
Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?
Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:
Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.
So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?
Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)
No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.
There's a big difference.
You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.
You're not giving up rights. You don't have the right to break the law just because you claim to be under orders from an invisible supernatural being.
