HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party

[Faun]

It's always fun watching the party that claims to be the champions of family values and personal responsibility -- also be the ones trying desperately to weasel out of being financially responsible for their own children.

 

[sealybobo]

Who pays for the children or abortion is part of the discussion. If the woman wants the choice and chooses to have kids, she can pay for them or they can do without. She made the choice that produced the result.

Damn right. When abortion was legalized in 1973 and men were excluded from the decision, all laws forcing men to pay child support should have been repealed.

No you have to pay for your mistake. If you can't go on welfare. That what you want?

The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice.

What I want is for the one making the choice to pay for the choice she makes.

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

 

[Conservative65]

Damn right. When abortion was legalized in 1973 and men were excluded from the decision, all laws forcing men to pay child support should have been repealed.

No you have to pay for your mistake. If you can't go on welfare. That what you want?

The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice.

What I want is for the one making the choice to pay for the choice she makes.

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's always fun watching the party that claims to be the champions of family values and personal responsibility -- also be the ones trying desperately to weasel out of being financially responsible for their own children.

They seem to have a problem identifying satirical stories too!

 

[Skylar]

You're the one who doesn't fact-check. This story is all over the internet but because CNN won't talk about it you say it never happened. The TV networks always censor stories like this.

Its on wordpress blogs and white supremecist websites. There's no 'Bailey Bakeries' in Georgia. Google it. There's no record of it. There's no record of this ruling.

All references to this 'story' go back to the same source: the 'tribuneherald.net' wordpress blog. Which is a SATIRE WEBSITE:

Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes.

All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.

About Tribune Herald

And guess which source your 'Washington Weekly News' wordpress blog cites as its original source for this 'article'? Here's the link at the bottom of the page titled 'Continue Reading'

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination Tribune Herald

Why the same tribuneherald.net satire article from 2013.

Remember, SS....and this point is fundamental: you don't actually fact check a fucking thing. And we know that. You're a mindless partisan hack who obediently vomits up whatever pseudo-political pablum he's stupidly swallowed without thought or question. And we know that too. You're a horrid source of information for that exact reason.

Don't ever bother to tell us you fact checked a source. Because we all know better. Being duped is one thing. That can happen to anyone. LYING about fact checking you've never done? That's something else all together. And its an instant integrity fail.

THINK

LMAO......you might have taken your own advice before citing a satire website as your primary source, dipshit.

 

[Skylar]

Yes exactly. As long as men have no say in the abortion decision, they should not have to pay any child support. Pretty obvious really.

Dont like it get fixed dont fuck or try to change anyones mind. You are alone on this one.

HAHAHA. Like hell i'm alone. Most americans agree with me on this. If men have to pay 18 years of child support, then they must have a say in the abortion decision. THINK

Should father have to pay child support if he wanted an abortion?

Yup.

See, a man and woman have equal obligations. If the child is born, they must support the child equally. If there is no child born, they equally have no obligation. At every stage their obligations are the same.

Exempting a man from child support if he doesn't want the child creates unequal obligation. As the mother is still obligated to pay. While the father is not. That dog won't hunt. As a parents obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. And a parent's obligation to pay exists as long as the child exists.

 

[sealybobo]

No you have to pay for your mistake. If you can't go on welfare. That what you want?

The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice.

What I want is for the one making the choice to pay for the choice she makes.

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice.

What I want is for the one making the choice to pay for the choice she makes.

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

 

[paperview]

You're the one who doesn't fact-check. This story is all over the internet but because CNN won't talk about it you say it never happened. The TV networks always censor stories like this.

Its on wordpress blogs and white supremecist websites. There's no 'Bailey Bakeries' in Georgia. Google it. There's no record of it. There's no record of this ruling.

All references to this 'story' go back to the same source: the 'tribuneherald.net' wordpress blog. Which is a SATIRE WEBSITE:

Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes.

All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.

About Tribune Herald

And guess which source your 'Washington Weekly News' wordpress blog cites as its original source for this 'article'? Here's the link at the bottom of the page titled 'Continue Reading'

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination Tribune Herald

Why the same tribuneherald.net satire article from 2013.

Remember, SS....and this point is fundamental: you don't actually fact check a fucking thing. And we know that. You're a mindless partisan hack who obediently vomits up whatever pseudo-political pablum he's stupidly swallowed without thought or question. And we know that too. You're a horrid source of information for that exact reason.

Don't ever bother to tell us you fact checked a source. Because we all know better. Being duped is one thing. That can happen to anyone. LYING about fact checking you've never done? That's something else all together. And its an instant integrity fail.

THINK

LMAO......you might have taken your own advice before citing a satire website as your primary source, dipshit.

It's pretty sad you even had to type that.

It's like tying to explain to someone who is utterly convinced all National Enquirer stories are real and the World Weekly News Batboy is scientific fact.

It is in the paper!!! Can't you read???

He's been told about 50 times now it's a fake story, but he says "it's all over the internet!!" It's real!!" CNN Conspiracy to cover it up!



Some people are so beyond hope.

 

[sealybobo]

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

I dont like conservatives who claim to be charitable but wants his government to do nothing.

Know why government has to step in? Because you and Rush dont give enough. Not nearly enough.

The fact is if you really care about life then you would never punish kids because their parents are stupid or lazy.

And I'll say it again. We have abortion because although it conflicts with your religion you care more about tax breaks than you do helping those poor children.

Anyways you stupid conservative hypocrites need to pony up and have iud's covered free in healthcare. Cheaper than welfare foodstamps. Better than abortion and more effective than rubbers and pills.
I love how you are torn. God or money. You choose $. Me too.

 

[sealybobo]

So a woman should pay for letting you penis her but you shouldn't have to pay because you have no choice?

I made this arguement once...for a joke! You aren't serious are you? Sorry you'll never convince us you dont have to pay for the children you bring into this world.

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

 

[Skylar]

A woman or the one she let stick it to her should pay. Those of us that had no part in it shouldn't pay a dime regardless of what happens to her or her kids.

I pay for the children I produced, gladly. I also pay for those I didn't produce and that shouldn't happen. See if you can understand the difference.

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

Many conservative Christians want a social network to be provided by people rather than government for one major reason: if its provided by people, the individuals get to set the rules. Take a look at third world countries and 'Christian Charities'. In many (but not all) instances, if you want the fucking food and medicine, you'd damn well better listen to the sermons. And eventually 'see the light'.

There are laudable exceptions to this practice. But the ability to use food, shelter and medicine as a club to force people to abide your religious beliefs is part of the goal of conservative Christian attempts to dismantle the social safety net. They use the same moral plastic wrap as Libertarians.....as starvation and death to the elements isn't caused by them, but the body of the individual, they're not technically applying 'force' in imposing their will.

And any form of exploitation or abuse up to the application of actual force is legitimate. At least by the standards they use.

 

[bodecea]

You're the one who doesn't fact-check. This story is all over the internet but because CNN won't talk about it you say it never happened. The TV networks always censor stories like this.

Its on wordpress blogs and white supremecist websites. There's no 'Bailey Bakeries' in Georgia. Google it. There's no record of it. There's no record of this ruling.

All references to this 'story' go back to the same source: the 'tribuneherald.net' wordpress blog. Which is a SATIRE WEBSITE:

Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes.

All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.

About Tribune Herald

And guess which source your 'Washington Weekly News' wordpress blog cites as its original source for this 'article'? Here's the link at the bottom of the page titled 'Continue Reading'

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination Tribune Herald

Why the same tribuneherald.net satire article from 2013.

Remember, SS....and this point is fundamental: you don't actually fact check a fucking thing. And we know that. You're a mindless partisan hack who obediently vomits up whatever pseudo-political pablum he's stupidly swallowed without thought or question. And we know that too. You're a horrid source of information for that exact reason.

Don't ever bother to tell us you fact checked a source. Because we all know better. Being duped is one thing. That can happen to anyone. LYING about fact checking you've never done? That's something else all together. And its an instant integrity fail.

THINK

LMAO......you might have taken your own advice before citing a satire website as your primary source, dipshit.

He's getting as bad as "SassyIrishLass" at being taken in by satirical sources.

 

[bodecea]

Yes exactly. As long as men have no say in the abortion decision, they should not have to pay any child support. Pretty obvious really.

Dont like it get fixed dont fuck or try to change anyones mind. You are alone on this one.

HAHAHA. Like hell i'm alone. Most americans agree with me on this. If men have to pay 18 years of child support, then they must have a say in the abortion decision. THINK

Poor boy....you fell into a satire hole and you just digging it deeper and deeper.

 

[Kosh]

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

Many conservative Christians want a social network to be provided by people rather than government for one major reason: if its provided by people, the individuals get to set the rules. Take a look at third world countries and 'Christian Charities'. In many (but not all) instances, if you want the fucking food and medicine, you'd damn well better listen to the sermons. And eventually 'see the light'.

There are laudable exceptions to this practice. But the ability to use food, shelter and medicine as a club to force people to abide your religious beliefs is part of the goal of conservative Christian attempts to dismantle the social safety net. They use the same moral plastic wrap as Libertarians.....as starvation and death to the elements isn't caused by them, but the body of the individual, they're not technically applying 'force' in imposing their will.

And any form of exploitation or abuse up to the application of actual force is legitimate. At least by the standards they use.

And far left drones like you want the your religion to dictate everything to all.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes exactly. As long as men have no say in the abortion decision, they should not have to pay any child support. Pretty obvious really.

Dont like it get fixed dont fuck or try to change anyones mind. You are alone on this one.

HAHAHA. Like hell i'm alone. Most americans agree with me on this. If men have to pay 18 years of child support, then they must have a say in the abortion decision. THINK

So you want to live in a world where you can force a woman to have the baby? Tell women that.

All you have to do is watch. She has to physically carry and birth the thing.

American Taliban.

 

[sealybobo]

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

Many conservative Christians want a social network to be provided by people rather than government for one major reason: if its provided by people, the individuals get to set the rules. Take a look at third world countries and 'Christian Charities'. In many (but not all) instances, if you want the fucking food and medicine, you'd damn well better listen to the sermons. And eventually 'see the light'.

There are laudable exceptions to this practice. But the ability to use food, shelter and medicine as a club to force people to abide your religious beliefs is part of the goal of conservative Christian attempts to dismantle the social safety net. They use the same moral plastic wrap as Libertarians.....as starvation and death to the elements isn't caused by them, but the body of the individual, they're not technically applying 'force' in imposing their will.

And any form of exploitation or abuse up to the application of actual force is legitimate. At least by the standards they use.

And far left drones like you want the your religion to dictate everything to all.

Oh shut up. He lays down something brilliant and you come back with that? Fucking weak man.

 

[sealybobo]

I thought you were saying since the man has no choice if the woman aborts he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to have the kid. In fact I'm sure that's what you were saying.

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

Many conservative Christians want a social network to be provided by people rather than government for one major reason: if its provided by people, the individuals get to set the rules. Take a look at third world countries and 'Christian Charities'. In many (but not all) instances, if you want the fucking food and medicine, you'd damn well better listen to the sermons. And eventually 'see the light'.

There are laudable exceptions to this practice. But the ability to use food, shelter and medicine as a club to force people to abide your religious beliefs is part of the goal of conservative Christian attempts to dismantle the social safety net. They use the same moral plastic wrap as Libertarians.....as starvation and death to the elements isn't caused by them, but the body of the individual, they're not technically applying 'force' in imposing their will.

And any form of exploitation or abuse up to the application of actual force is legitimate. At least by the standards they use.

Dont even reply to that koshole. You nailed it and he basically replied " I know I am what are you?". Na na na na na. Boy he told you.

 

[Skylar]

This was my statement: "The problem isn't with the men who fathered the children paying for the choice the woman made. The problem with those of us that didn't paying for her choice."

Seems pretty clear to me that I think the sperm donor should pay but those of us that didn't do with her what it took for her to get pregnant shouldn't pay. Despite my personal contention with abortion, I don't care how many a woman has as long as she pays. I also don't care how many children someone has as long as that choice isn't one I'm forced to fund when the one making the choice can't afford it.

This is why abortion was legalized. Peoples pocketbooks outweighed their religious objections. Tells me americans worship capitalism more than god.

Perhaps you missed the part about me having a personal contention with abortion. Since I am not the one a person having an abortion has to answer to, caring is irrelevant.

I don't have a problem helping those in need based on my religious beliefs. I have a problem being told who that should be and how much it should be by someone claiming that my religious beliefs demand I do it the way someone else thinks I should. Help should come because the one giving it chooses to do so not because some bleeding heart that wants to take credit as if the money came from them wants it mandated. While the amount may be the same, I don't have a problem giving where I see the need. I have a problem being forced to give where someone else sees that need on my behalf.

And I'm sorry but we humans shouldn't even have poverty. Why do we? Because capitalism needs ditch diggers to work cheap. Capitalism and religion dont jive you dig? I know you think god loves you but he doesnt I promise. Youre basically a modern day roman citizen. Christians shutter when you claim to be one. It was theists like you that made me realize gods dont exist. You are the american taliban.

Many conservative Christians want a social network to be provided by people rather than government for one major reason: if its provided by people, the individuals get to set the rules. Take a look at third world countries and 'Christian Charities'. In many (but not all) instances, if you want the fucking food and medicine, you'd damn well better listen to the sermons. And eventually 'see the light'.

There are laudable exceptions to this practice. But the ability to use food, shelter and medicine as a club to force people to abide your religious beliefs is part of the goal of conservative Christian attempts to dismantle the social safety net. They use the same moral plastic wrap as Libertarians.....as starvation and death to the elements isn't caused by them, but the body of the individual, they're not technically applying 'force' in imposing their will.

And any form of exploitation or abuse up to the application of actual force is legitimate. At least by the standards they use.

Dont even reply to that koshole. You nailed it and he basically replied " I know I am what are you?". Na na na na na. Boy he told you.

Kosh? He's one of two posters I have on ignore. I debated him one evening for about 6 hours. His every reply was the same.

Let me guess.....Left wing drone. Fringe left. Some reference to nazis, killing people or fascism?

If I'm wrong, I'll take him off ignore. If I'm not, then I've already heard everything he has to say on every topic.

 

[sealybobo]

You're the one who doesn't fact-check. This story is all over the internet but because CNN won't talk about it you say it never happened. The TV networks always censor stories like this.

Its on wordpress blogs and white supremecist websites. There's no 'Bailey Bakeries' in Georgia. Google it. There's no record of it. There's no record of this ruling.

All references to this 'story' go back to the same source: the 'tribuneherald.net' wordpress blog. Which is a SATIRE WEBSITE:

Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes.

All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.

About Tribune Herald

And guess which source your 'Washington Weekly News' wordpress blog cites as its original source for this 'article'? Here's the link at the bottom of the page titled 'Continue Reading'

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination Tribune Herald

Why the same tribuneherald.net satire article from 2013.

Remember, SS....and this point is fundamental: you don't actually fact check a fucking thing. And we know that. You're a mindless partisan hack who obediently vomits up whatever pseudo-political pablum he's stupidly swallowed without thought or question. And we know that too. You're a horrid source of information for that exact reason.

Don't ever bother to tell us you fact checked a source. Because we all know better. Being duped is one thing. That can happen to anyone. LYING about fact checking you've never done? That's something else all together. And its an instant integrity fail.

THINK

LMAO......you might have taken your own advice before citing a satire website as your primary source, dipshit.

It's pretty sad you even had to type that.

It's like tying to explain to someone who is utterly convinced all National Enquirer stories are real and the World Weekly News Batboy is scientific fact.

It is in the paper!!! Can't you read???

He's been told about 50 times now it's a fake story, but he says "it's all over the internet!!" It's real!!" CNN Conspiracy to cover it up!



Some people are so beyond hope.

I asked my dad about this. I said should a christian bake a gay wedding cake and he says "I'd bake them whatever they want". But then I asked if the kkk can demand a black baker bake a nig@3r cake and he says no.

Why not?