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 also was raised in the SBC then in my early 20s I went over to the COC.
They are all pretty far out there, IMO.
Well then your behavior is easy to figure out. It's all "I hate my upbringing" whining.
Why would I hate my family & why are you attacking my family?
You sure are a stupid motherfucker.
Not attacking your family at all.
Question, do you still practice as a southern Baptist?
When YOU state, "It's all "I hate my upbringing" whining" that is a comment about the job my parent's did raising one of their progeny.
Don't discuss my family here you fvcking jackass.
Why are you too fvcking stupid to pull your head outta your ass?
You brought up how you were raised, you called the churches "loopy", I am merely making an observation.
Typically people who leave a certain group, be it religion, political leaning, smokers, meat eaters, etc tend to have poor views of those who remain. This is particularly true of those raised in the group and leave, be it due to issues with the group, or more personal ones, i.e. issues with their parents. or a combination.
Well then your behavior is easy to figure out. It's all "I hate my upbringing" whining.
Why would I hate my family & why are you attacking my family?
You sure are a stupid motherfucker.
Not attacking your family at all.
Question, do you still practice as a southern Baptist?
When YOU state, "It's all "I hate my upbringing" whining" that is a comment about the job my parent's did raising one of their progeny.
Don't discuss my family here you fvcking jackass.
Why are you too fvcking stupid to pull your head outta your ass?
You brought up how you were raised, you called the churches "loopy", I am merely making an observation.
Typically people who leave a certain group, be it religion, political leaning, smokers, meat eaters, etc tend to have poor views of those who remain. This is particularly true of those raised in the group and leave, be it due to issues with the group, or more personal ones, i.e. issues with their parents. or a combination.
Here is MY quote:
"I also was raised in the SBC then in my early 20s I went over to the COC.
They are all pretty far out there, IMO."
My being a member of the SBC for many years has nothing at all to do with your dumbass comment, "It's all "I hate my upbringing" whining."
Also, I never said "loopy" in reference to "the churches."
I said, "They are all pretty far out there, IMO."
If you desire to discus this thread then go discuss it with another member, not with me.
Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.
Don't you?
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
They are just following the biblical mandate to pick the lesser of two evils!
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sometimes that's the only move.
And when that's the case not making the move is worse.
Perhaps that's true, but it seems to be the case not just sometimes, but every single presidential (and most Congressional) election.
I'm not saying that there are always a bunch of excellent third party presidential candidates. However, when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the best the Republicans and Democrats can put forward, I would have thought more people would at least take a serious look at alternatives.
IMO too many people are perfectly comfortable with the two party system. It allows for a very simplified outlook on politics, making things black and white, us vs them. So long as people remain comfortable with that paradigm, with the idea of voting in the lesser of two evils, only someone extremely wealthy, like Ross Perot, will have any chance at all of trying to make a dent on a presidential election, and with the soaring spending in elections, even he might have trouble getting enough promotion done today.
The problem is 3rd party groups want the quick fix. They figure win the top spot, and their party will trickle down to the lower levels of government.
They don't want to do the hard, and maybe decades long work of building a new party from the ground up.
The only times in our history that 3rd parties have become strong quickly is when an established party disintegrates and the remnants form new parties, that try to counter each other and the existing established party.
To some degree that's true, and I've long thought that third parties should do just as you say, try to build from the local level up.
However, there are some factors which might make that difficult. First, I think that most people only vote in presidential elections. That's directly related to the second factor, which is that national and particularly presidential elections get a lot more media attention and promotion. There are often a lot of local elections that people don't even know about unless they keep themselves abreast of local politics. As an example, the 2018 midterms supposedly had the highest voter turnout in 50 years for a midterm, and it still didn't reach the level of participation that a presidential election does. Because of this, even if a third party were to gain some ground in local elections, it might not translate into state or national elections. That doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be made! A third, and hugely important factor, is money. Money obviously plays a huge role in political campaigns, and the Democrats and Republicans are able to generate much more than independents and have far better frameworks in place. There are exceptions, and the long dominance of the two big parties can lead to them being so sure of their place that an independent candidate can surprise them, but it's still an issue.
I would like to see the sort of party disintegration you talked about a bit more frequently, if we aren't going to get any viable third or fourth parties. 150+ years seems too long for only 2 parties to be in control of politics.
The mechanics of presidential elections lean towards less parties, not more. The addition of a 3rd party similar to one of the existing ones usually leads to the party NOT similar to the other two winning.
Ground up is the only viable option barring a party disintegration.
And he will.Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
Only god can judge that.
Btw Marty, I had no idea that you were religious. But I'm glad to know you are because I'd love to know how you reconcile your faith with your Libertarian leanings. As far as I can see, they are mutually exclusive. Maybe you aren't Christian so forgive me for the mistake.Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
Only god can judge that.
Evangelicals never explain how anything they complain about other people doing or believing affects their own lives, and then scream "persecution!" They are free to choose whatever lifestyle they wish, but it seems that their actual goal is to control the lives and choices of other people. They essentially want to impose a theocracy on the entire country, in complete disregard of the rights of others and the Constitution itself.
Evangelicals are not immune from criticism. They certainly feel free tp criticise others; other people's beliefs, lifestyles, and personal choices.
The fact that they are willing to cause substantial damage to our nation, our security, our reputation, our rights, and our legal system is downright despicable.
That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.
Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.
On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.
"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"
What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.
Don't you?
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
Sometimes that's the only move.
And when that's the case not making the move is worse.
Perhaps that's true, but it seems to be the case not just sometimes, but every single presidential (and most Congressional) election.
I'm not saying that there are always a bunch of excellent third party presidential candidates. However, when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the best the Republicans and Democrats can put forward, I would have thought more people would at least take a serious look at alternatives.
IMO too many people are perfectly comfortable with the two party system. It allows for a very simplified outlook on politics, making things black and white, us vs them. So long as people remain comfortable with that paradigm, with the idea of voting in the lesser of two evils, only someone extremely wealthy, like Ross Perot, will have any chance at all of trying to make a dent on a presidential election, and with the soaring spending in elections, even he might have trouble getting enough promotion done today.
The problem is 3rd party groups want the quick fix. They figure win the top spot, and their party will trickle down to the lower levels of government.
They don't want to do the hard, and maybe decades long work of building a new party from the ground up.
The only times in our history that 3rd parties have become strong quickly is when an established party disintegrates and the remnants form new parties, that try to counter each other and the existing established party.
To some degree that's true, and I've long thought that third parties should do just as you say, try to build from the local level up.
However, there are some factors which might make that difficult. First, I think that most people only vote in presidential elections. That's directly related to the second factor, which is that national and particularly presidential elections get a lot more media attention and promotion. There are often a lot of local elections that people don't even know about unless they keep themselves abreast of local politics. As an example, the 2018 midterms supposedly had the highest voter turnout in 50 years for a midterm, and it still didn't reach the level of participation that a presidential election does. Because of this, even if a third party were to gain some ground in local elections, it might not translate into state or national elections. That doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be made! A third, and hugely important factor, is money. Money obviously plays a huge role in political campaigns, and the Democrats and Republicans are able to generate much more than independents and have far better frameworks in place. There are exceptions, and the long dominance of the two big parties can lead to them being so sure of their place that an independent candidate can surprise them, but it's still an issue.
I would like to see the sort of party disintegration you talked about a bit more frequently, if we aren't going to get any viable third or fourth parties. 150+ years seems too long for only 2 parties to be in control of politics.
The mechanics of presidential elections lean towards less parties, not more. The addition of a 3rd party similar to one of the existing ones usually leads to the party NOT similar to the other two winning.
Ground up is the only viable option barring a party disintegration.
The third party is here. Trumpican is the new party.
And he will.Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
Only god can judge that.
Btw Marty, I had no idea that you were religious. But I'm glad to know you are because I'd love to know how you reconcile your faith with your Libertarian leanings. As far as I can see, they are mutually exclusive. Maybe you aren't Christian so forgive me for the mistake.Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
Only god can judge that.
They are a cult and should be attacked constantly.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.
Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.
On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.
"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"
What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.
Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.
They are a cult and should be attacked constantly.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.
Don't you?
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.
The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.
Catch-22 situation.
What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.
Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.
The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.
It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.
The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.
But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.
Don't you?
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.
The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.
Catch-22 situation.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.
Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.
The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.
It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.
The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.
Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.
The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.
It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.
The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
Again with the personal insults. The main issue is following laws that apply to everyone regardless of religion, gender, or anything else, a concept that plays a large part in keeping our society from descending into chaos.What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.
May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?
You are a one-trick pony.
Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.
The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.
And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.
Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?
You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.
Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.
The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.
It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.
The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.
