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.
Yeah cause baking a cake or not is the same as allowing guns or not. LolI remember you defending the baker who didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake. Your position then was it's his business to run as he sees fit. You know, property rights and all that jazz.
This is no different yet now you think your rights superceded those of the property owner?
I'm confused
Being bigoted against gays is not the same as being bigoted against guns.
There is no god damn difference. Either we as conservatives support the right of business owners to manage their businesses as they deem necessary or we don't.
Yeah cause baking a cake or not is the same as allowing guns or not. Lol
Being bigoted against gays is not the same as being bigoted against guns.
There is no god damn difference. Either we as conservatives support the right of business owners to manage their businesses as they deem necessary or we don't.
Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
I read that three times and still have to ask if you have that in English? What he said, that I agreed to, was being consistent on the rights of property owners, in this case say no gays or no guns with equal standing.I like sugar in my tea. My comment makes as much sense as yours.
Managing is managing no? Managing racisim, bigotry, hatred, gun carrying, murderers, how much sugar goes in your tea, ... it's all the same no? Isn't that what he said and you agreed to?
What he doesn't get, because he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, is that your position is the ability of a property owner to say "no gay cakes" is covered by the same right they would use to say "no guns", the right to control your own property as you see fit.There is no god damn difference. Either we as conservatives support the right of business owners to manage their businesses as they deem necessary or we don't.
Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
I read that three times and still have to ask if you have that in English? What he said, that I agreed to, was being consistent on the rights of property owners, in this case say no gays or no guns with equal standing.Managing is managing no? Managing racisim, bigotry, hatred, gun carrying, murderers, how much sugar goes in your tea, ... it's all the same no? Isn't that what he said and you agreed to?
I'll repeat you are saying there is no difference between being bigoted against gays or being bigoted against gun carry. The right to manage gay access is not the same as the right to manage gun carry. These are two completely different issues. Your accusation is either that they are the same thing, or that if one supports gay bigotry then one must support gun carry bigotry or be a hypocrite. Which is it? I assumed you know there is a difference, was I wrong?
There is no god damn difference. Either we as conservatives support the right of business owners to manage their businesses as they deem necessary or we don't.
Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
There is no difference between the two when it comes to being consistent about the ability of the owner to say no gays or no guns, and have both positions respected. If you believe that the property owner sets the rules, then they are allowed to say no gays, no guns, no blacks, no Jews, no midgets and have their position respected.I read that three times and still have to ask if you have that in English? What he said, that I agreed to, was being consistent on the rights of property owners, in this case say no gays or no guns with equal standing.Managing is managing no? Managing racisim, bigotry, hatred, gun carrying, murderers, how much sugar goes in your tea, ... it's all the same no? Isn't that what he said and you agreed to?
I'll repeat you are saying there is no difference between being bigoted against gays or being bigoted against gun carry. The right to manage gay access is not the same as the right to manage gun carry. These are two completely different issues. Your accusation is either that they are the same thing, or that if one supports gay bigotry then one must support gun carry bigotry or be a hypocrite. Which is it? I assumed you know there is a difference, was I wrong?
Non discrimination rights are non absolute either, i.e. private clubs.
And going to "non absolute" all the time is basically ignoring the concepts of the debate, probably because you have no better response.
Thank you for acknowledging that all rights are not absolute; I agree. Noticing the difference between gun rights and civil rights on equal categories of citizens is an excellent way to demonstrate the difference.
And in this case, a proprietor there legally can exclude open carry from his premises.
How? if the state law allows it, and the owner meets all the requirements on what basis does the business owner have the right to deny access when he allows the rest of the public access?
The issue of rights not be absolute is meaningless in this argument. What matters is that when it comes to rights, the government must have overwhelming evidence that expression of the right in the manner proscribed creates such harm that it has to be punished.
I read that three times and still have to ask if you have that in English? What he said, that I agreed to, was being consistent on the rights of property owners, in this case say no gays or no guns with equal standing.
I'll repeat you are saying there is no difference between being bigoted against gays or being bigoted against gun carry. The right to manage gay access is not the same as the right to manage gun carry. These are two completely different issues. Your accusation is either that they are the same thing, or that if one supports gay bigotry then one must support gun carry bigotry or be a hypocrite. Which is it? I assumed you know there is a difference, was I wrong?
The ONLY one talking about being biggoted against fags is you.
Is there something you would like to share with the class?
Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
Liar. Pics or it didn't happen.
They refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay customer, which by definition is being bigoted against gays.
Make up your dumb ass mind, first you say being bigoted against gays is the same as being bigoted against gun carry, then you say it's not, now you say it is again. Which is it? They are the same or they are different?What he doesn't get, because he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, is that your position is the ability of a property owner to say "no gay cakes" is covered by the same right they would use to say "no guns", the right to control your own property as you see fit.Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
I'll repeat you are saying there is no difference between being bigoted against gays or being bigoted against gun carry. The right to manage gay access is not the same as the right to manage gun carry. These are two completely different issues. Your accusation is either that they are the same thing, or that if one supports gay bigotry then one must support gun carry bigotry or be a hypocrite. Which is it? I assumed you know there is a difference, was I wrong?
The ONLY one talking about being biggoted against fags is you.
Is there something you would like to share with the class?
Do you have Alzheimers? You brought up the bake shit in post 325 ya dumb ass.
The dumb ass little friend is you, for being unable to understand that if an owner can say one thing, he can say another. No gays, no guns, no God, his call. I don't agree but that is the position you are unable to understand so far.Make up your dumb ass mind, first you say being bigoted against gays is the same as being bigoted against gun carry, then you say it's not, now you say it is again. Which is it? They are the same or they are different?What he doesn't get, because he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, is that your position is the ability of a property owner to say "no gay cakes" is covered by the same right they would use to say "no guns", the right to control your own property as you see fit.Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
Plain and simple, you lied. There was no request to put a penis on the cake.Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
Liar. Pics or it didn't happen.
They refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay customer, which by definition is being bigoted against gays.
Now you're calling me a liar?
Fuck you jackass. Suck on this neg as a substitute for the pic of a cake that didn't get baked yet you're still dumb enough to ask for a pic of it
The dumb ass little friend is you, for being unable to understand that if an owner can say one thing, he can say another. No gays, no guns, no God, his call. I don't agree but that is the position you are unable to understand so far.Make up your dumb ass mind, first you say being bigoted against gays is the same as being bigoted against gun carry, then you say it's not, now you say it is again. Which is it? They are the same or they are different?What he doesn't get, because he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, is that your position is the ability of a property owner to say "no gay cakes" is covered by the same right they would use to say "no guns", the right to control your own property as you see fit.
The ONLY one talking about being biggoted against fags is you.
Is there something you would like to share with the class?
Do you have Alzheimers? You brought up the bake shit in post 325 ya dumb ass.
That has NOTHING to do with bigotry.
Plain and simple, you lied. There was no request to put a penis on the cake.Liar. Pics or it didn't happen.
They refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay customer, which by definition is being bigoted against gays.
Now you're calling me a liar?
Fuck you jackass. Suck on this neg as a substitute for the pic of a cake that didn't get baked yet you're still dumb enough to ask for a pic of it
Given that you are not willing to admit you lied and felt the need to neg about your lie what does that make you? Coward.
Need a tissue?
Do you have Alzheimers? You brought up the bake shit in post 325 ya dumb ass.
That has NOTHING to do with bigotry.
What are you trying to say, that the bake shit has nothing to do with bigotry against gays, or that the bake shit in your #325 post had nothing to do with this thread?
Thank you for acknowledging that all rights are not absolute; I agree. Noticing the difference between gun rights and civil rights on equal categories of citizens is an excellent way to demonstrate the difference.
And in this case, a proprietor there legally can exclude open carry from his premises.
How? if the state law allows it, and the owner meets all the requirements on what basis does the business owner have the right to deny access when he allows the rest of the public access?
The issue of rights not be absolute is meaningless in this argument. What matters is that when it comes to rights, the government must have overwhelming evidence that expression of the right in the manner proscribed creates such harm that it has to be punished.
How? That has been explained repeatedly to you.
You don't agree, I get that.
Make up your mind, in this post you say there is no god damn difference between supporting an owners right to be bigoted against gays and an owners right to be bigoted against gun carry.
Then this other later post you say you did not say there is no god damn difference between the two. Make up your mind.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake with a dick on top is bigoted?
If you believe that you & I are done conversing.
Liar. Pics or it didn't happen.
They refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay customer, which by definition is being bigoted against gays.
