New House Speaker flying christian nationalist flag outside his office.

[Crepitus]

I did not say you SHOULD. You just are.

''hate Jews and Christians''

Your words, yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're not reading or comprehending. Everything you see, or read, you filter through the lens of right wing grievance. Just like my comparison of the flags. Conservatives can't even celebrate Christmas any more without having a shit fit over people saying "Happy Holidays", and claiming there's a "war on Christmas".

The right is being jerked from one state of outrage to the next and you go along with all of it without a second thought. From "critical race theory", which isn't being taught in any American school below the postgraduate level, to drag shows grooming children to pedophilia, you people will believe ANYTHING right wing media tells you.

You claim that I don't have legitimate reasons to think Trump is unfit for office. It's just TDS. Clearly you didn't read or comprehend my posts.

In fact, American conservatives are so ill-informed and gullible as to be a danger to your nation.

I can't imagine being upset about how many white people I do or don't see in commercials, much less posting about it.

I pointed out how your posts, most especially those re Trump, are so filled with disinformation or flat out untruths that nobody honorable or intellectually honest could see them as anything other than TDS and pure hatred. And your post here does absolutely nothing to dispel that notion or that you view Americans like me with anything other than full contempt. I won't argue with you further DL. I don't know what happened to you as you used to be a pretty reasonable and likable person. But oh well. You will believe what you believe and nobody is likely to change that. Do have a great afternoon though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I pointed out how your posts, most especially those re Trump, are so filled with disinformation or flat out untruths that nobody honorable could see them as anything other than TDS and pure hatred.

No you didn't. You made that claim without argument or evidence. You didn't "point anything out" except for a talking point that fizzled into your own brain.

But you always make this same mistake. You literally think things are true because they came out of your mouth.

 

[Foxfyre]

No you didn't. You made that claim without argument or evidence. You didn't "point anything out" except for a talking point that fizzled into your own brain.

But you always make this same mistake. You literally think things are true because they came out of your mouth.

I'll refer you to all my other posts. You'll find lots of lots of credible support for my opinions. I don't express an opinion that I cannot back up with logic, reason, and/or credible sources. And I try very very hard not to argue ad hominem as you just did. Have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's not a matter of being a "lie"...

It's a matter of perceiving the moral wrongness of the customer and not wanting to have anything to do with him-her-it...

Then opening a business that serves the public is probably not a good idea.

You could open a cake business that serves a specific clientele, but that would limit the number of customers and money.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'll refer you to all my other posts.

In which you do precisely the same thing.

Over and over and over.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then opening a business that serves the public is probably not a good idea.

Unless you operate somewhere dominated by bigots. Then you could advertise it as a feature.

That's why we need federal laws regarding businesses in the marketplace.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unless you operate somewhere dominated by bigots. Then you could advertise it as a feature.

That's why we need federal laws regarding businesses in the marketplace.

again the supreme Court disagrees with you people. The baker was allowed to not do his art for whom ever he does not want to based on his beliefs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

again the supreme Court disagrees with you people.

No the fuck it doesn't.

Hang your No Ni66ers sign in your storefront window.

Report back with the results. Not the cheers of your neighbors and friends. What happens after the feds visit you.

It's people like you that made us have to teach people how to be moral. Apparently religion failed them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No the fuck it doesn't.

Hang your No Ni66ers sign in your storefront window.

Report back with the results. Not the cheers of your neighbors and friends. What happens after the feds visit you.

It's people like you that made us have to teach people how to be moral. Apparently religion failed them.

refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not the same thing you fucking moron and yes the Court said he had the right.

 

[Dragonlady]

the Supreme Court disagrees with you all as it ruled a baker can in fact refuse to CREATE their art if they so desire based on religion.

No they did not. They ruled in favour of the baker because they believed the Appeals Court erred on technical grounds. Not that he had the right to refuse to bake the cake, but that the Appeals Court was hostile to his claim.

"The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case." This was not a license to refuse service on religious grounds.

Supreme Court rules Christian web designer can refuse to work on same-sex weddings

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.nbcboston.com

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

And Jack just lost another appeal of his so-called religious freedoms:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

I guess this guy never read "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess people should start denying Jack service on the grounds that he's an asshole. I wouldn't serve this guy. Get outta my store bigot.

 

[Dragonlady]

refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not the same thing you fucking moron and yes the Court said he had the right.

No the Court did not say he had the right at all. The Court said his case wasn't properly heard.

But he did lose another case filed by a transgender person he refused service to:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/

"Lawyers for the baker, who was fined $500, had argued that he refused service based on his sincere Christian beliefs and that forcing him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition would violate his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But Judge Timothy Schutz, writing for the three-judge panel, said the pink cake with blue frosting Scardina requested expressed no message or imagery with any inherent meaning that would violate his rights."

I pointed out how your posts, most especially those re Trump, are so filled with disinformation or flat out untruths that nobody honorable or intellectually honest could see them as anything other than TDS and pure hatred. And your post here does absolutely nothing to dispel that notion or that you view Americans like me with anything other than full contempt. I won't argue with you further DL. I don't know what happened to you as you used to be a pretty reasonable and likable person. But oh well. You will believe what you believe and nobody is likely to change that. Do have a great afternoon though.

NONE of my posts about Trump are "filled with disinformation". List one thing I have EVER posted about Donald Trump that was false.

You are determined to see every disagreement or criticism of anything by non-Americans as "contempt". Which again, is YOUR projection of how YOU feel towards others.

I haven't changed one little bit. I am saying the same things about Trump I was saying 9 years ago.

 

[sartre play]

FLAGS, CAKES, Not much on what we need to do about how are government is run?

 

[Foxfyre]

No the Court did not say he had the right at all. The Court said his case wasn't properly heard.

But he did lose another case filed by a transgender person he refused service to:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/

"Lawyers for the baker, who was fined $500, had argued that he refused service based on his sincere Christian beliefs and that forcing him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition would violate his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But Judge Timothy Schutz, writing for the three-judge panel, said the pink cake with blue frosting Scardina requested expressed no message or imagery with any inherent meaning that would violate his rights."


NONE of my posts about Trump are "filled with disinformation". List one thing I have EVER posted about Donald Trump that was false.

You are determined to see every disagreement or criticism of anything by non-Americans as "contempt". Which again, is YOUR projection of how YOU feel towards others.

I haven't changed one little bit. I am saying the same things about Trump I was saying 9 years ago.

Earlier I pointed out that your assertion that he declared bankruptcy on the Trump Tower in Toronto was entirely false. Trump had no financial interest in that property whatsoever. He was never even a minor shareholder. He sold his name to the developers who wanted to use it. He had nothing to do with the bankruptcy. That's just one of many things you got wrong.

But again I'm tired of your angry, hateful rants for today so I won't respond further. Again have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No they did not. They ruled in favour of the baker because they believed the Appeals Court erred on technical grounds. Not that he had the right to refuse to bake the cake, but that the Appeals Court was hostile to his claim.

"The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case." This was not a license to refuse service on religious grounds.

Supreme Court rules Christian web designer can refuse to work on same-sex weddings

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.nbcboston.com

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

And Jack just lost another appeal of his so-called religious freedoms:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

I guess this guy never read "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess people should start denying Jack service on the grounds that he's an asshole. I wouldn't serve this guy. Get outta my store bigot.

read the headline in your linked post. It states he did not have to bake the cake. Go ahead cite for us whether he ever baked the cake or was forced to do anything because of his refusal.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, you can discriminate if you own a business.

Up to a (certain extent) you can, but if open to the public at large, you have some options such as no guns allowed, proper clothing required etc, but never can a business discriminate on the basis of race because race is not a preference or a choice. Other things are being argued as not being a preference or a choice, but those arguments are not settled, and therefore until they are the law doesn't apply in their favor.

Religious rights gives everyone the right to not be involved or engage in anything that violates their FREEDOM of RELIGION in which involves their beliefs and standards based upon those religious beliefs that are and have been allowed forever in the USA under certain guidelines and criteria, and especially so when there are alternative businesses that fit the preferences and needs of those who are anti-God or anti-religious or etc in America. The place is big enough to accommodate all, and to appease all without people being offended or made to suffer regardless of who you are in life. Pursue freedom of choice, and if choice is limited then create companies that cater to your needs. It's really that simple. Food and water is all humans need to live, and no one would deny anyone the necessities of life without being in violation of the law's, but other special interest are subject to preference and wants instead of needs, so seek therefore what you all think you need in life, but don't get upset if it's not being produced for you or catered to you based upon your personal preferences. This is not a dictatorship.

As long as choice and alternative options exist, then there is no reason why people should be invading someone's business with alterior motives, otherwise that are known to go against the religious values of the ownership, and to then challenge the standards set forth by the owner of that business when he or she is operating said business under certain guidelines that he or she has set and imposed without breaking the law.

I agree that standardized prepared cakes in the case up front should be sold to anyone that walks in, otherwise if the shop is advertised as open to the public, and without signage that shows the shop as being a religious business, but the cake designing that has to be done by the baker in the back, otherwise that might be in violation of his or her religious beliefs should be off limits to those seeking alternative designs for certain venues that offend the religious owners religion and/or his or her values based upon that religion.

Let's face it folks, Muslim shops or businesses will not be designing and baking any cakes for anyone that violates their strong religious beliefs, yet they aren't targeted by these group's in an attempt to change their operations in such a way.

WHY ??

 

[hadit]

People who support a guy that has a masturbation pact with his children are the biggest problem in this country

Care to be a little more specific on that? You know, instead of the inflammatory nonsense?

 

[Kondor3]

Then opening a business that serves the public is probably not a good idea.

Only if you live in a setting where you are forced to do business with people whose behavior your religion holds to be sinful.

You could open a cake business that serves a specific clientele, but that would limit the number of customers and money.

Only if you live in a setting...

 

[hadit]

No they did not. They ruled in favour of the baker because they believed the Appeals Court erred on technical grounds. Not that he had the right to refuse to bake the cake, but that the Appeals Court was hostile to his claim.

"The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case." This was not a license to refuse service on religious grounds.

Supreme Court rules Christian web designer can refuse to work on same-sex weddings

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.nbcboston.com

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

And Jack just lost another appeal of his so-called religious freedoms:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20Colorado%20baker,to%20celebrate%20a%20gender%20transition.

I guess this guy never read "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess people should start denying Jack service on the grounds that he's an asshole. I wouldn't serve this guy. Get outta my store bigot.

If a cake artist can be forced to sell his art to anyone who wants to buy it, a singer should not be able to prevent a political candidate from licensing his/her music for use on the campaign trail.

 

[hadit]

Then opening a business that serves the public is probably not a good idea.

You could open a cake business that serves a specific clientele, but that would limit the number of customers and money.

Based on this, I would like to see recording artists forced to allow their music to be used for any political candidate who wants to use it.