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.
I’m thinking maybe between 12 and 11.I am open to suggestions on lowering women down the list. Where would you propose them to be?
Ah the cake thing. Trying to make discrimination legal through religious exemption was never going to work because there is no scriptural prohibition against doing business with "sinners". In fact it seems more like Jesus said to be fair and honest with everyone no matter how much you might dislike them."Bake that damn cake, peasant"
I’m thinking maybe between 12 and 11.
Leftists are more protective of Hispanics than women. They fight to the death to translate everything Into Spanish for them, and have set up special funds to keep Hispanics who don’t pay their rent from being evicted.
7-4-3-2-1This started in another thread, but I thought I would present it as a stand alone post.
Behold the "Pity Power Rankings", to be used to determine how much pull your positions have based on what you are, rather than the validity or strength of your argument.
20. Trans
19 Gay/Lesbian
18. Blacks
17. Muslims
16 Women
15 Convicted Felon
14 Native Americans
13 illegal alien
12 Hispanics
11 SE Asian
10 Atheist (Militant only, if Agnostic, go with what you were brought up as)
9 Convicted Criminal
8 Asians
7 Jewish
6 Christian
5 No Criminal Record
4 Straight
3.Citizen/Legal Resident
2. Whites
1. Men
So add up your score! the higher the score, the more your views amongst the SJW's and Woke hold water, regardless of the validity or even feasibility of your position.
Work in progress, so feel free to adjust the rankings and add more.
Ah the cake thing. Trying to make discrimination legal through religious exemption was never going to work because there is no scriptural prohibition against doing business with "sinners". In fact it seems more like Jesus said to be fair and honest with everyone no matter how much you might dislike them.
Thanks. This was a great idea for a thread!Hispanics are starting to leave the reservation, at least the ones legally here are.
Good point, I will take it into consideration for version 2.
Yup, this is wrong and I oppose boys competing against girls.Take the trans, for example. We just had a trans (a 6’ 2, biological male) who is winning swimming competitions against real girls. He gets to use the girls‘ locker room, where he exposes his penis to the other 35 members of the swim team, who are all girls.
I see no hate. I see a list of various groups of people who are given more sympathy, priority, and protection than others.
Take the trans, for example. We just had a trans (a 6’ 2, biological male) who is winning swimming competitions against real girls. He gets to use the girls‘ locker room, where he exposes his penis to the other 35 members of the swim team, who are all girls.
The left races in to protect this ONE trans, citing his “feelings,” and making the 35 real girls feel uncomfortable. So why is ONE person’s feelings more important than 35 others? Because that ONE ranks at the top of the protection scale.
There can be no religious exemption from anti discrimination laws unless they can point to a clearly defined piece of established religious dogma that expressly prohibits such an action. Throwing open the door for people to arbitrarily deny service on religious grounds affects more than just the bigot baker. It establishes a dangerous precedent where discrimination is protected under the first amendment.There is no "sell something and lose 1st amendment protections" exception in the Constitution either.
It just shows you want forced acceptance as opposed to tolerance.
The greatness of free exercise protections when properly adjudicated is the government only gets a say when there is a compelling government interest, and then they can only fix the situation using the least intrusive method possible.
Saying someone has to bake a wedding cake for a same sex ceremony or has to give up their business isn't the least intrusive method, and someone's butthurt over having to go to another provider for a contracted, non essential or timely item isn't a compelling government interest.
Does this really happen?He gets to use the girls‘ locker room, where he exposes his penis to the other 35 members of the swim team, who are all girls.
There can be no religious exemption from anti discrimination laws unless they can point to a clearly defined piece of established religious dogma that expressly prohibits such an action. Throwing open the door for people to arbitrarily deny service on religious grounds affects more than just the bigot baker. It establishes a dangerous precedent where discrimination is protected under the first amendment.
What's the "One thing" that they (who specifically) can't admit?It's the one thing they can't admit,
What's the "One thing" that they (who specifically) can't admit?
Your statement is pretty vague, just asking for some clarification.
I don’t know that he “prances,” but he DOES undress in front of girls. A biological boy needs to be in a separate space, given that these girls have said how uncomfortable he makes them.Does this really happen?
I'm serious, does he prance around the room exposing himself?
I marvel at the outright hatred displayed by the members of Alt-Right Nation on this board every day.
20. Trans
19 Gay/Lesbian
18. Blacks
17. Muslims
16 Women
A person cannot just arbitrarily invent religious beliefs that say they have to discriminate. The bible does not say thou shalt not serve faggots. This is the result of the unholy marriage of evangelicals and politics. Suddenly the current political attitudes of the far right become religious belief even if it's contrary to what the bible says.Again, the burden is on the GOVERNMENT, not the person or religion. You are going counter to the intent and design of the amendment.
It already is. you can't force a Church to perform a SSM, why is forcing a person to go against their religion any different?
Free exercise isn't limited to the Clergy.
Yup, this is wrong and I oppose boys competing against girls.
Solution:
Divisions:
Boys
Girls
Trans
Problem Solved
Do you even attempt to read what I wrote?Final note: I see that you are defending the trans - rather than the 35 girls. That was the point of the OP. Certain people are viewed as more worthy of protection than others.
Bored.Really bothers you when people tell the TRUTH, Jack? So you hope to suppress it with labels like hate?
Bored.
