Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

[martybegan]

yes, he produced the birth certificate, and the matter was closed to me.

AH! So you did believe that he wasn't born in America, then! So why are you arguing with me that you didn't believe that and that you're not a racist? Why did Obama have to produce a birth certificate to you in the first place? Obviously because you thought he wasn't born here. Which makes you a birther. Whether or not you accept that he was now, doesn't change the fact that you came to the doubt before. That doubt is what makes you a racist shitgoblin and why everything you're posting is a bunch of racist, walked-back bullshit.

Just like i read about the issue with McCain's Canal zone birth, and Cruz's Canadian birth location, and when I read some constitutional explanations, I was satisfied.

Bull-fucking-shit! I searched through your posts...not once did you mention McCain and Panama in 7 years until today. So fuck you, lying racist shitheel. Your lies don't work here.

Unlike progressive lemmings such as yourself, I don't accept blank statements that things are acceptable.

Ah, but you do. You accepted blindly and blankly the doubt of Obama's birth. Why did you accept that? Because you're a racist. At least have the fucking balls to admit it.

I linked two of the issues that showed a potential Kenyan birth, and both were found to be mistakes made by the people publishing the information. Again, I accepted those explanations.

Not once in the entire time you've been posting on USMB did you ever raise the issue of McCain's birth. We know this because we can search your posts. So now, in addition to make lying bullshit arguments on this thread, you fucking lie about your posts on the history of this message board. So since you lied about all that shit, why would you be telling the truth about anything else?????

And where is there evidence of my racism? And don't link me calling a poster ****** or boy as evidence, I only use those to get rises out of racist assholes like Asssplicasss.

Not once in the entirety of your presence on these message boards have you ever mentioned McCain/Panama until this thread. So why the fuck should any of us believe you when you say that the circumstances around his birth were given the same weight as your suspicions around Obama?

I had not formed an opinion either way, I followed the stories, saw the BC, and then stopped following the stories. Just like I stopped following stories on McCain and Cruz when the issue of their birth was settled to my satisfaction.

Just because I didn't post on something didn't mean I wasn't following it. A lack of posting about it does not evidence make.

No i read about it and discussed it. The provision of the certificate ended my interest in the topic

Again post history does not show what I did when not posting, so your "proof" is nothing but air

Because this is probably the most I have discussed the topic of ANY of their eligibility questions. It wasn't a topic that interested me once I read the proofs of all their eligibility.

you can believe what you want.

 

[martybegan]

How little you know about anything. And since you just called my parents drug addicts, you are being reported.

Desperate to avoid the conversation, martybegan runs like a whiny little bitch to the moderators.

Coward.

Only when you broke the rules. You were insulting me constantly and nary a peep did I send in the mods direction.

 

[The Derp]

Maybe in the classical sense I am a Sophist, but not by the current usage.

You make knowingly false arguments, then refuse to support those arguments with any proof. That's sophism and that's what you've done this entire thread. Then you refuse to take responsibility for it. Which makes you a piece of shit on top of being a racist shitgoblin.

They are being forced to do something they don't want to do because of their religious beliefs.

Yet, you refuse to explain or point out what baking a cake has to do with religious beliefs. Because you're a whiny little bitch who can't. So you moved the goalposts to say that those bigots interpret (how? you refuse to say) that baking a cake for a gay wedding is an anti-religious act. But you can't articulate how it is, only that some racist bigots believe it is. Well, what those knuckle-draggers may think doesn't fucking matter. Unless God is coming down and testifying on a witness stand that baking cakes is somehow an exercise against religious freedom, ya got nuthin'. And that's what the courts have said. So suck it.

Since there is no actual harm done by the refusal

There is harm. It's discrimination. It violates the civil rights of the people they refused service to based on their weirdo religious beliefs that you refuse to even support or define. So you've got all the work to do, and you are the one who has to prove your religious beliefs are harmed by baking a cake. But you refuse to do that because you know you can't. Yet you argue it anyway because you're a sophist.

Point of sale is walk in, walk out, no knowledge of how the item will be used. This is a contracted service for a specific ceremony.

Wedding cakes are not a part of the wedding ceremony. They are part of the reception after the ceremony has already taken place. No wedding, gay or straight, that I've ever been to has incorporated the cake as part of the ceremony. Breaking a glass under a handkerchief? Yes. Releasing doves? Yes. But cutting and eating a cake has always happened after the marriage ceremony is done. Have you ever been to a wedding before? You say you're married, but I don't believe you. Not if you think cakes are a part of the marriage ceremony.

Just another major point you ignore because you're a piece of shit and a whiny little bitch.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe in the classical sense I am a Sophist, but not by the current usage.

You make knowingly false arguments, then refuse to support those arguments with any proof. That's sophism and that's what you've done this entire thread. Then you refuse to take responsibility for it. Which makes you a piece of shit on top of being a racist shitgoblin.

They are being forced to do something they don't want to do because of their religious beliefs.

Yet, you refuse to explain or point out what baking a cake has to do with religious beliefs. Because you're a whiny little bitch who can't. So you moved the goalposts to say that those bigots interpret (how? you refuse to say) that baking a cake for a gay wedding is an anti-religious act. But you can't articulate how it is, only that some racist bigots believe it is. Well, what those knuckle-draggers may think doesn't fucking matter. Unless God is coming down and testifying on a witness stand that baking cakes is somehow an exercise against religious freedom, ya got nuthin'. And that's what the courts have said. So suck it.

Since there is no actual harm done by the refusal

There is harm. It's discrimination. It violates the civil rights of the people they refused service to based on their weirdo religious beliefs that you refuse to even support or define. So you've got all the work to do, and you are the one who has to prove your religious beliefs are harmed by baking a cake. But you refuse to do that because you know you can't. Yet you argue it anyway because you're a sophist.

Point of sale is walk in, walk out, no knowledge of how the item will be used. This is a contracted service for a specific ceremony.

Wedding cakes are not a part of the wedding ceremony. They are part of the reception after the ceremony has already taken place. No wedding, gay or straight, that I've ever been to has incorporated the cake as part of the ceremony. Breaking a glass under a handkerchief? Yes. Releasing doves? Yes. But cutting and eating a cake has always happened after the marriage ceremony is done. Have you ever been to a wedding before? You say you're married, but I don't believe you. Not if you think cakes are a part of the marriage ceremony.

Just another major point you ignore because you're a piece of shit and a whiny little bitch.

None of my arguments are false, you just don't like or don't understand them.

Providing the cake for a ceremony that celebrates something they find immoral is the issue, not the baking.

And more appeal to authority from you.

Butt hurt is not harm. and there is no right of a person to have the specific cake they want from a specific vendor. The harm is them having to choose between a massive fine and violating the religious moral beliefs.

That is your view, it is not theirs. and the cutting of the cake by the bride and groom has been an integral part of the overall event for centuries.

 

[The Derp]

The harm is from being forced to choose between their beliefs and their livelihoods.

What does a cake have to do with beliefs? Nothing. Wedding cakes are eaten after the wedding ceremony has taken place!

What fucking weddings make the cake part of the ceremony? None I've ever been to, and I've been to my fair share of weddings of all religions and types; gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, even down at the courthouse. Not one single wedding has ever made the cake part of the ceremony.

So the main pillar of your argument crumbles because you don't even seem to know what a wedding ceremony is.

This is what I mean when I say you're a sophist. This is exactly it.

Again, it's not the cake, its the act of providing something for a ceremony solemnifying something their religion considers sinful.

Cakes are not and have never been a part of wedding "ceremonies". Receptions and parties, sure. But not part of the ceremony. So you're fucking lying. You're exercising sophistry to make a lying point in order to justify bigotry. You refuse to support your argument. You're a sophist. Plain and simple. And now we have a thread that proves it. Not to mention the fact that you're a liar too, as the whole BC thing shows.

Again, reported for involving family members..

???? WTF does this mean? More context, please.

As for you line by line, the first four result in actual CRIMINAL harm, assault, attempted murder, murder, and arson to be exact. The last one doesn't make any sense, because no one is stopping you from insulting people.

Not if I claim it's me exercising self-defense of my religious exercise. That's the argument you're making, not me.

 

[martybegan]

The harm is from being forced to choose between their beliefs and their livelihoods.

What does a cake have to do with beliefs? Nothing. Wedding cakes are eaten after the wedding ceremony has taken place!

What fucking weddings make the cake part of the ceremony? None I've ever been to, and I've been to my fair share of weddings of all religions and types; gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, even down at the courthouse. Not one single wedding has ever made the cake part of the ceremony.

So the main pillar of your argument crumbles because you don't even seem to know what a wedding ceremony is.

This is what I mean when I say you're a sophist. This is exactly it.

Again, it's not the cake, its the act of providing something for a ceremony solemnifying something their religion considers sinful.

Cakes are not and have never been a part of wedding "ceremonies". Receptions and parties, sure. But not part of the ceremony. So you're fucking lying. You're exercising sophistry to make a lying point in order to justify bigotry. You refuse to support your argument. You're a sophist. Plain and simple. And now we have a thread that proves it. Not to mention the fact that you're a liar too, as the whole BC thing shows.

Again, reported for involving family members..

???? WTF does this mean? More context, please.

As for you line by line, the first four result in actual CRIMINAL harm, assault, attempted murder, murder, and arson to be exact. The last one doesn't make any sense, because no one is stopping you from insulting people.

Not if I claim it's me exercising self-defense of my religious exercise. That's the argument you're making, not me.

Again, that is your view. Theirs is different, and its their civil rights that are being violated in the name of "equality"

Just because you dismiss the point doesn't make it invalid.

You are splitting hairs because you have no real argument past "I don't like these people, let government mess with them, fap fap fap fap"

You said you would rape my wife. Family member involved AND a proposed Criminal act.

Again, actual harm done to another party. And a self defense claim is affirmative, and not a question of religious dogma.

But nice try.

 

[The Derp]

I had not formed an opinion either way, I followed the stories, saw the BC, and then stopped following the stories. Just like I stopped following stories on McCain and Cruz when the issue of their birth was settled to my satisfaction.

Bullshit. If this was such an important, principled thing for you why is it you never mentioned McCain or Cruz in this context until just now, in this thread. You expect me to take your word for it? Why? That's what guilty people say. Why the fuck should I take your word for it?

Just because I didn't post on something didn't mean I wasn't following it. A lack of posting about it does not evidence make.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Why the fuck should I take your word for it, without proof, that you were following it? Doesn't seem like you were at all. The only time you talk about it is within the context of Obama's birth certificate, which for some reason you required as "sufficient" proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. So why did you need a birth certificate for Obama, yet you didn't need one for anyone else? Because Obama's black and you're a racist.

No i read about it and discussed it. The provision of the certificate ended my interest in the topic

Why were you interested in the first place? Because you're a racist who couldn't handle the fact that Obama was elected to clean up after 8 years of your shitty policy failures. Disputing the legal status of McCain being born in Panama is not the same thing as demanding to see Obama's BC because you didn't believe he was born in America. If you cannot see that distinction then it's because you're being obtuse on purpose. Which makes you a sophist.

Again post history does not show what I did when not posting, so your "proof" is nothing but air

LOL! This coming from the guy who refuses to provide proof at all and relies on the "take my word for it" route. Actually, absence of this issue from your post history says a lot about what you claim. Thankfully, USMB gives us the chance to look back on previous posts to catch liars like you. So despite a lack of evidence to the contrary, there seems to be no constant standard when it comes to your acceptance of citizenship. Only that you deemed it necessary to have Obama provide "sufficient" evidence, while refusing to say why you thought that in the first place. We all know why you thought that; you're a racist loser who adheres to shitty policy, whose ego is so fragile it has to be treated like a glass menagerie.

Because this is probably the most I have discussed the topic of ANY of their eligibility questions. It wasn't a topic that interested me once I read the proofs of all their eligibility.

Gee, it didn't stop you from talking about it in 2010 or 2011. So...your post history seems to undermine whatever defense you're trying to muster here.

you can believe what you want.

Yes, we know that this is what you think, which is how you justify your own hideousness to yourself.

 

[martybegan]

I had not formed an opinion either way, I followed the stories, saw the BC, and then stopped following the stories. Just like I stopped following stories on McCain and Cruz when the issue of their birth was settled to my satisfaction.

Bullshit. If this was such an important, principled thing for you why is it you never mentioned McCain or Cruz in this context until just now, in this thread. You expect me to take your word for it? Why? That's what guilty people say. Why the fuck should I take your word for it?

Just because I didn't post on something didn't mean I wasn't following it. A lack of posting about it does not evidence make.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Why the fuck should I take your word for it, without proof, that you were following it? Doesn't seem like you were at all. The only time you talk about it is within the context of Obama's birth certificate, which for some reason you required as "sufficient" proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. So why did you need a birth certificate for Obama, yet you didn't need one for anyone else? Because Obama's black and you're a racist.

No i read about it and discussed it. The provision of the certificate ended my interest in the topic

Why were you interested in the first place? Because you're a racist who couldn't handle the fact that Obama was elected to clean up after 8 years of your shitty policy failures. Disputing the legal status of McCain being born in Panama is not the same thing as demanding to see Obama's BC because you didn't believe he was born in America. If you cannot see that distinction then it's because you're being obtuse on purpose. Which makes you a sophist.

Again post history does not show what I did when not posting, so your "proof" is nothing but air

LOL! This coming from the guy who refuses to provide proof at all and relies on the "take my word for it" route. Actually, absence of this issue from your post history says a lot about what you claim. Thankfully, USMB gives us the chance to look back on previous posts to catch liars like you. So despite a lack of evidence to the contrary, there seems to be no constant standard when it comes to your acceptance of citizenship. Only that you deemed it necessary to have Obama provide "sufficient" evidence, while refusing to say why you thought that in the first place. We all know why you thought that; you're a racist loser who adheres to shitty policy, whose ego is so fragile it has to be treated like a glass menagerie.

Because this is probably the most I have discussed the topic of ANY of their eligibility questions. It wasn't a topic that interested me once I read the proofs of all their eligibility.

Gee, it didn't stop you from talking about it in 2010 or 2011. So...your post history seems to undermine whatever defense you're trying to muster here.

you can believe what you want.

Yes, we know that this is what you think, which is how you justify your own hideousness to yourself.

You can do whatever you want, but again, my not posting is not proof of me never looking it up or considering it.

you 2nd paragraph has a definitive Mojo Jojo aspect to it.

Because it was in the news.

I didn't lie about anything. you assumed and read into one of my posts to support your invalid claim.

I posted about it a bit, and in the end concluded the BC was valid.

Blah blah blah.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Obama. Had he not been the worst president this country ever saw regarding mainstream American citizens Hillary could have walked into the White House. But when he became an awful president and Hillary said she would continue his legacy, America spoke very loud and clear, it was time for change. To quote Obama himself, "Hope and Change."

Obama was far from the worst President, and among the rankings by Presidential Historians, is in the top 15.

Oh wow, CBS news says Obama was a great president!!! Also, at 11, we report, water is wet!!

 

[The Derp]

None of my arguments are false, you just don't like or don't understand them.

When you refuse to provide any kind of support for your argument, it means you are making a false argument knowingly and are withholding information that could undermine your points. That's why you aren't citing sources for how baking a cake is "part of the ceremony" or even a religious act. You're substituting in the word of these bigots that it is, for actual facts. Well, the word of bigots is specifically what is in question here.

Providing the cake for a ceremony that celebrates something they find immoral is the issue, not the baking.

Cakes aren't for wedding ceremonies, they're for wedding receptions. The wedding ceremony is different from the wedding reception. So here we have a clear case of you moving the goalposts. What wedding have you been to where the cake was part of the ceremony? None. Because it isn't.

And more appeal to authority from you. Butt hurt is not harm. and there is no right of a person to have the specific cake they want from a specific vendor. The harm is them having to choose between a massive fine and violating the religious moral beliefs.

Discrimination is specifically harm, and the argument you're using about "religious liberty" for denying service to gays is the same argument the SCOTUS shot down in the 60's about "religious liberty" as it relates to interracial marriage. Just like gay marriage, the court found that the ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th amendment. Baking a cake is not a religious act and for your argument to make sense, you have to prove it is...which you've said you refuse to do. So that leaves us with your sophist argument and nothing more.

That is your view, it is not theirs. and the cutting of the cake by the bride and groom has been an integral part of the overall event for centuries.

Ahhhh! Notice how you shifted the parameters to the "event" from the "ceremony". So now you're saying that a reception after the wedding is a part of the wedding ceremony. Is that your new position as you try to wiggle your way out of the corner into which you've painted yourself? Because it sure as shit reads like that. Oh, and furthermore, what happens if the reception where the cake is plays music by gay artists? Or by artists who sing about the moral bankruptcy of religion? How far are you taking this newfound standard you're applying to "events" when before your position was that a wedding cake was part of the ceremony. LOL. "Part of the ceremony"...what an idiot.

 

[martybegan]

None of my arguments are false, you just don't like or don't understand them.

When you refuse to provide any kind of support for your argument, it means you are making a false argument knowingly and are withholding information that could undermine your points. That's why you aren't citing sources for how baking a cake is "part of the ceremony" or even a religious act. You're substituting in the word of these bigots that it is, for actual facts. Well, the word of bigots is specifically what is in question here.

Providing the cake for a ceremony that celebrates something they find immoral is the issue, not the baking.

Cakes aren't for wedding ceremonies, they're for wedding receptions. The wedding ceremony is different from the wedding reception. So here we have a clear case of you moving the goalposts. What wedding have you been to where the cake was part of the ceremony? None. Because it isn't.

And more appeal to authority from you. Butt hurt is not harm. and there is no right of a person to have the specific cake they want from a specific vendor. The harm is them having to choose between a massive fine and violating the religious moral beliefs.

Discrimination is specifically harm, and the argument you're using about "religious liberty" for denying service to gays is the same argument the SCOTUS shot down in the 60's about "religious liberty" as it relates to interracial marriage. Just like gay marriage, the court found that the ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th amendment. Baking a cake is not a religious act and for your argument to make sense, you have to prove it is...which you've said you refuse to do. So that leaves us with your sophist argument and nothing more.

That is your view, it is not theirs. and the cutting of the cake by the bride and groom has been an integral part of the overall event for centuries.

Ahhhh! Notice how you shifted the parameters to the "event" from the "ceremony". So now you're saying that a reception after the wedding is a part of the wedding ceremony. Is that your new position as you try to wiggle your way out of the corner into which you've painted yourself? Because it sure as shit reads like that. Oh, and furthermore, what happens if the reception where the cake is plays music by gay artists? Or by artists who sing about the moral bankruptcy of religion? How far are you taking this newfound standard you're applying to "events" when before your position was that a wedding cake was part of the ceremony. LOL. "Part of the ceremony"...what an idiot.

The issue is the government's ability to ruin someone over butt hurt. That's what it boils down to. You are OK with it in this case because you hate Religious people.

Two sides of the same coin. My ceremony was AT my reception.

Discrimination is harm when it results in actual harm. not Butt hurt. And you still can't force a minister to marry an interracial couple, despite what loving said. All loving affected was the legal concept of marriage.

You are the one making a distinction to prove your point, I am saying the distinction doesn't matter. Both parts celebrate the marriage.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Derp, I don't want to get between you and Marty as ya'll seem to be having a good time, but IMHO, it's not the "event" or the "ceremony" it's the fact that the gov't is trying to force a private company to do business with a private individual. I don't care if the cake will be eaten by dogs in the parking lot, there are reasons that companies have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It's because you can't MAKE someone do business with someone else. If you can, you open up a can of worms that you will never get back closed again.

People can start suing for not being served when they walk into a corner store wearing nothing but underwear, after all, if you can make someone make a cake for a wedding you can make them sell a candybar to a man in a speedo. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[The Derp]

Again, that is your view. Theirs is different, and its their civil rights that are being violated in the name of "equality"

There aren't multiple "views" at play here. There is only the law, and the bigots' attempts to justify abrogating responsibility to the law. It's not up for debate that they violated the civil rights of gay people. They did. That's why they're in court. The debate that should happen is; how is baking a cake a religious act? You say they and you don't have to provide proof of any kind that it is, only that merely saying so makes it so. Well, that's not how the law works, the courts work, and society works. You don't get to invent things on the spot, pretend those things are the standard, all so you can justify your racism and/or bigotry. So how is baking a cake a religious act when there's no mention of it in the Bible, and the cake isn't even a part of the ceremony they "object" to based solely and only on their bigoted racist interpretation of what they think God thinks.

So it's like the Conservative trifecta: Narcissism, bigotry, and irresponsibility.

Just because you dismiss the point doesn't make it invalid.

What makes it invalid is how you refuse to provide anything to support it. You said yourself you don't have to. Really? Well, that's not what the courts said. So you can just claim any act is a religious one, right? Isn't that what you're doing? You do something wrong because you're a piece of shit, so you try to excuse it by throwing your hands up and saying "oh, it's religious exercising". When asked how it's religious exercising, your reply was "I don't have to say how, it just is". No. You have to say how. Otherwise, you're opening the door for any action against the law as being one of religious exercise. Which is bullshit because you just got done saying my examples of religious exercising aren't because they break the law. Well, discriminating against gay people is against the law too. You don't get a special exemption because you claim religion. Mostly because you refuse to even say how it is religious in the first place. And the fucked up thing is that I think you already know that. Yet you do it anyway. Which makes you a sophist and an asshole.

You are splitting hairs because you have no real argument past "I don't like these people, let government mess with them, fap fap fap fap"

How am I splitting hairs? Explain. I think you just spout off random shit because you think it makes you look more clever than you actually are. As I've said countless times, I don't care if you worship some magic cloud fairy. Just do it in the privacy of your home and in your church. Don't bring that shit to society where it can fuck with the minds of children. We have to think of the children. We can't let them believe that you can justify any action by claiming religious freedom. Because that's how we got Jim Crow, among other stains.

You said you would rape my wife. Family member involved AND a proposed Criminal act.

No, what I said was that if I fucked your wife (consent wasn't even discussed), you can't get mad at her or me because I did so as a religious exercise. What you did, again, was exercise sophistry and lies and pretend that I said I raped her, when you and I both know that wasn't what I said, and we can even go back at the thread and look at what I said. So you deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to make yourself a victim. And you're not a sophist? LOL! whatever.

And a self defense claim is affirmative, and not a question of religious dogma..

According to you. And we know that you just make up accommodations whenever it suits your fluid, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting, parameter-redefining argument. You notice how inconsistent you are about what you believe? First you said baking a cake was a religious exercise. Then you said, "oh baking a cake for the ceremony is a religious exercise", then you said "oh baking a cake in celebration of the ceremony is a religious exercise" so in three posts you changed the context of what you said three times. And you're not a sophist? LOL...OK, pal...

 

[The Derp]

You can do whatever you want, but again, my not posting is not proof of me never looking it up or considering it.

Yes it is, because you bleated on and on in 2010 and 2011 about Obama's birth certificate - we have the post records to prove it. But strangely, there are no posts of yours from 2016 when Ted Cruz was running for President and you supposedly "looked into it".

I think you know you just got caught on your bullshit.

Because it was in the news.

Maybe for one 24-hour cycle, barely. But the issue of Ted Cruz' legal status is wildly different than pretending Obama wasn't born in America at all. We all knew Cruz was born in Canada. The question there was whether or not his parents were citizens. You all didn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii, despite the fact that he was. So, how are those two the same? They're not. This is you trying to exercise sophistry in order to avoid culpability for your obvious racism and bigotry. Oh, also, not a single post from you on these boards about Cruz's status. So don't fucking lie to me. I'm not as stupid as you, so you can't fool me with this bullshit like you fool yourself.

Why are you putting yourself through the ringer here? Why not just admit that you had to be convinced by "sufficient proof" that Obama was born in the US because you're a racist shitgoblin? It would make it so much easier for you if you were just honest about this. I don't know why you aren't. Your ego doesn't matter enough to anyone. So why are you doing this?

I didn't lie about anything. you assumed and read into one of my posts to support your invalid claim.

But you did lie, though. You tried to pretend that you had just as much concern about Cruz' status as you did about Obama's birth but we know that's not true because we can see it in your post history. Not once until this thread in the thousands of posts of yours from the last 7 years did you mention Cruz and birth certificates in the same sentence. NOT ONCE. So I'm supposed to take your word for it? Why? Because your word is what your entire argument that you're not a racist hinges on and I gotta say, that and $5 will buy you a $5 footlong at Subway and nothing more.

I posted about it a bit, and in the end concluded the BC was valid.

No, you didn't post about Cruz at all. And for Obama, what you posted was that it wasn't until he provided you with "sufficient" proof that he was born in Hawaii. But why did you demand that standard of "sufficient proof" in the first place? Because you're a racist piece of shit who didn't like the fact that Obama's election was basically a rejection of the Conservative principles of the 8 years prior. Principles that are still unchanged today. The platform of Conservatives in 2017 is no different than the platform of Conservatives in 2008, which is no different than the platform of 2004, which is no different than the platform of 2000, and so on and so forth all the way back to 1980.

Actually, that's not entirely true. There has been one change to the Conservative platform over the last 45 years and it happened last summer at the RNC: they changed their Ukraine view from anti-Russia to pro-Russia. Gee, I wonder why...

 

[The Derp]

Oh wow, CBS news says Obama was a great president!!! Also, at 11, we report, water is wet!!

Remove head from your ass and actually read a link. CBS was just reporting what the Smithsonian does already. It's not CBS' list, it's the Smithsonian's list. So thanks for proving that you don't read, and that you're a piece of shit liar.

 

[The Derp]

The issue is the government's ability to ruin someone over butt hurt. That's what it boils down to. You are OK with it in this case because you hate Religious people.

The only butthurt whiners are you and your fellow bigots who are trying to convince us that their bigotry is justified by their religion. First of all, that's fucked up itself that you are using religion to justify bigotry. From what I've heard and been told about religion, that's a big no-no. Secondly, you're the one whining like a whiny little bitch about the "hardship" of "financial ruin" for bigots who are using religion to justify their bigotry. You say baking a cake is a religious act. Then you said baking the cake for the ceremony is a religious act. Then you said baking a cake in celebration of the event is a religious act. So...I count three distinctly different thoughts there, what about you? I count two goalpost shifts, what about you? Your idiot posts are so blatant about this redefinition of parameters...it's got the subtlety of a Baz Luhrmann movie.

Again, I don't hate religious people. As I've said over and over, you can believe in a magic cloud fairy...I don't care. I care when you use that belief system as justification for your immoral, inhuman, unethical, and bigoted actions. That's my line. So you can whine like a little bitch and pretend to be a victim. You can pretend that I "hate" religious people because casting it that way makes you feel better about your shit argument and shit belief system. The only thing you're a victim of is your own laziness.

Two sides of the same coin. My ceremony was AT my reception.

LOL! Annnnnnnnnnnnd right on cue, here comes the anecdotes. Which came first, the ceremony or the reception celebrating the ceremony? The ceremony, duh. Because why would you have your wedding reception before you have your wedding? That's called a Bridal Shower. Fucking clown.

Discrimination is harm when it results in actual harm.

Denial of service is harm. That's what the courts said, and that's why all the appeals by your fellow bigots have been shot down, one after another after another.

not Butt hurt. And you still can't force a minister to marry an interracial couple, despite what loving said. All loving affected was the legal concept of marriage.

If you are charging as a point of sale (think drive-thru chapels in Vegas) you certainly cannot discriminate. So I don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. And ministers performing ceremonies is different from bakers making a cake that is eaten after the ceremony. You keep trying to conflate the two because that's the only way you look less monstrous. But you are a monster. And a whiny little bitch.

ou are the one making a distinction to prove your point, I am saying the distinction doesn't matter. Both parts celebrate the marriage.

LOL! So again, you move the goalposts! So now it's about "celebration" of the wedding...which has nothing to do with religious exercising because now we're talking about something that happens outside of the ceremony. So that's what, the fourth time you've redefined the parameters? I mean at this point, it's just sad the lengths you are going to justify bigotry.

 

[The Derp]

Derp, I don't want to get between you and Marty as ya'll seem to be having a good time, but IMHO, it's not the "event" or the "ceremony" it's the fact that the gov't is trying to force a private company to do business with a private individual.

For fuck's sake, the 1964 Civil Rights Act said you cannot discriminate on any grounds if you are providing a public accommodation which, outside of membership clubs, every business is.

In no word are you going to win the argument that it's OK to discriminate because of your religion. Just like in no world have any of those whiny little bitch bakers won any of their court cases.

I don't care if the cake will be eaten by dogs in the parking lot, there are reasons that companies have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Yeah, thing is, those signs aren't law. They carry no legal weight. They aren't admissible in a court of law, and are really window-dressing for people like you. They're a gimmick and a con, and anyone who thinks they can do so -particularly along racial, gender, and sexual orientation- don't know what the fuck they're talking about. You cannot reserve that right because it's not a right you can reserve. Fucking idiot. Grow up.

People can start suing for not being served when they walk into a corner store wearing nothing but underwear, after all, if you can make someone make a cake for a wedding you can make them sell a candybar to a man in a speedo.

PeopleofWalmart.com

That's all I have to say about this shit part of your shit post.

 

[airplanemechanic]

For fuck's sake, the 1964 Civil Rights Act said you cannot discriminate on any grounds if you are providing a public accommodation which, outside of membership clubs, every business is.

Wrong. You have twisted the words of the Act to fit what you WANT it to say. That, or you just flat out lied. It doesn't say you "cannot discriminate on any grounds." It states very specifically that you cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. It does not say anything about sexual orientation. So the CRA of 1964 carries no weight with what you're talking about.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

 

[The Derp]

I didn't buy into it. I followed the story and when sufficient evidence was presented, dropped my interest in it.

But you did buy into it if you demanded "sufficient proof" Obama was born in Hawaii. So that means you didn't think he was born in America.

And why didn't you think that?

Because you're a racist.

 

[The Derp]

The courts also ruled once that separate but equal was OK and Dred Scott was still a slave. your appeal to authority has no water with me.

My appeal to authority? You're the ones literally appealing to the authority of God to dictate who you bake cakes for!

I mean, seriously...is this for real? Did you seriously just post that in a thread where you are defending bigots appeal to God as the authority for baking cakes?

Wow. I think I'm actually speechless at the complete disconnect you have from what you just said, not to mention reality.