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 think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.
Thanks for proving you're a liberal trying to talk conservatives into not fighting back.
The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.
If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.
You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you? Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?
I find it valid as it has never been defeated. You act like people are below you when I've stipulated to the legal differences between the two acts. You obviously aren't reading the posts, just cherry picking and trying to flame me... to YOUR detriment.
Your detriment has been shown repeatedly in the poorly thought out and sophomoric arguments you've presented. Often convoluted and lacking in experience.
[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Because butt pirates are special.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
aug 26 2017 Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
“Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
yea they do seem similar....You sure it isn't one person with three socks?out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
It seems to me, his posts, Tank's, and McRacist's post seem awfully damn similar.
The problem is whites are too gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.
So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
The problem is whites are to gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".They don't play chess. Ever play one in a game of Umfofo or Bunga Bunga?
I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think. Blacks sing and dance and play sports. They put on shows for white ppl.
There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.
If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.
If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.
Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
Selective abominations.Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront. The members of that group still have freedom of speech. But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
There is something I love about that argument. It cannot stand scrutiny.
If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights. But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves. Funny how that works.
If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Tell me WITF cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion. Forcing someone in the private sector to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "separation of church and state" the left babbles on about.
Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.[
You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against serving faggots so please leave".
Answer that, hater.
But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage. And, according to the Bible, that is adultery. And adultery made the Big 10 list. But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
You obviously don't read the Bible. If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."
(See I Corinthians 7: 14 thru 16)
If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
