Why do the people who voted for Hillary want to pay more taxes?

[ThisIsMe]

If you create anything for specific cause, then you are working on behalf of that cause, which means you are participating.

Right. The electric company was part of the wedding party, along with the people who sold them the ice for the punch.

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

 

[oreo]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

What makes you think that Democrats want higher taxes? I think the debate is why large corporations got a permanent tax cut from 36% all the way down to 20%, while the middle working class got a meger tax cut that is not permanent. And you can bet your last nickle that they will start reducing deductions on the middle class to get it all back.

What is it about Republicans that complain about yuuuge deficits, but rarely make cuts to the budget, after campaigning on it for the last 8 years, yet pull out the credit card to give a large corporations a yuuuge tax cut. What is it about Republicans that threaten to shut down the government at every opportunity, when Democrats are in charge, yet add more in military spending and other pet programs, adding to the Federal budget when they're in charge? What is it about Republicans who had a conniption fit every time the debt ceiling had to be raised, but are now raising the debt ceiling themselves?

What is it about Republicans that campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare for the last 8 years but couldn't get it done, with a cheaper, better more comprehensible plan? What is it about Republicans that don't give a rats ass about the high cost of prescription drugs in this country, where seniors are crossing the Canadian border in bus loads to find more affordable prescription drugs.

What is it about Republicans interest in cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits at every opportunity to make up for budget shortfalls and deficits while adding yuuuuge amounts to military spending and other pet programs?

 

[BULLDOG]

Right. The electric company was part of the wedding party, along with the people who sold them the ice for the punch.

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

Of course you are talking about discrimination, and our laws do force businesses that do business with the public to treat everyone fairly. That is the purpose of public accommodation laws. A private entity such as a private club or a church doesn't have to adhere to all those laws. A bakery is not a church or private club. Why are you trying to shift the discussion? We can discuss Muslim and Jewish butchers later if you like (they both have the same religious restrictions on pork). You have yet to justify why YOUR specific religion should be exempt from laws that every other business has to comply with.

Every business is a "private entity." It's not a branch of the government.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. A business serving the public is required to serve all customers fairly. A private club isn't.

That brings up a good question...why are clubs exempt from this?

They are private groups, and can include or exclude whoever they want for their own reasons, or for no reason. Of course a private club doesn't enjoy many of the advantages of doing business with the public. You are free to choose which rout you want to take, but you are bound by the rules for your choice.

 

[BULLDOG]

Right. The electric company was part of the wedding party, along with the people who sold them the ice for the punch.

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

 

[dblack]

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

 

[dblack]

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

 

[BULLDOG]

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

 

[dblack]

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

 

[Kosh]

How many far left drones here will pay more taxes to protest the tax cuts?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes. Those are the far extremes, but that is what we are talking about. Why discuss the comparatively small things when the same circumstances also allow the extremes? It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure a solution can be found that will satisfy everybody, but the equal opportunity for everyone effected MUST and WILL be the most important consideration. Christians are used to having unfair advantages, and I know reduction of those advantages seem unfair. I suspect the effort to allow rights to people who haven't been allowed their rights will be hard for you to understand, but you'll just have to get over it.

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

 

[francoHFW]

That is the way society works
As a whole you make out better than you would by yourself

I'd be better off if I wasn't forced to pay for things I neither want nor need.

Your standard of living is higher because you live in a great society

That's because it used to be a somewhat free society. However, it's been steadily going down the road to socialist tyranny since FDR.

FDR turned us into a modern Democracy and the most powerful nation on earth

Yup he blew up Europe and japan.... that made the middle class.

He gave us FDIC Social Security retirement and disability unemployment welfare made us a modern country and won the war. Now we are a stupid behind the times Reagan ist Mess. Everyone else has living wage 5 week vacations daycare Healthcare cheap college which we had before Reagan what an a******bought off corporate a******....

 

[dblack]

Refusing to serve someone is in no way violating their rights.

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

Sure ostrich up. No need to consider anything outside your predetermined convictions.

No one has a right to be served by anyone else. We can write, and attempt to enforce, laws that contradict that - but they are corrupt at the core, and violate rights rather than protect them.

 

[BULLDOG]

The SC disagrees.

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

Sure ostrich up. No need to consider anything outside your predetermined convictions.

No one has a right to be served by anyone else. We can write, and attempt to enforce, laws that contradict that - but they are corrupt at the core, and violate rights rather than protect them.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[dblack]

They are wrong. Rights are freedoms, liberties - not demands.

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

Sure ostrich up. No need to consider anything outside your predetermined convictions.

No one has a right to be served by anyone else. We can write, and attempt to enforce, laws that contradict that - but they are corrupt at the core, and violate rights rather than protect them.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Again. Nothing. If you got nothing, why respond at all? Just skulk away with your unchallenged opinions.

 

[BULLDOG]

You should write them a letter.

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

Sure ostrich up. No need to consider anything outside your predetermined convictions.

No one has a right to be served by anyone else. We can write, and attempt to enforce, laws that contradict that - but they are corrupt at the core, and violate rights rather than protect them.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Again. Nothing. If you got nothing, why respond at all? Just skulk away with your unchallenged opinions.

I haven't seen anything that could be considered a challenge. Just you mumbling some silly crap that means nothing.

 

[dblack]

That's all you got? Ok.

In your case, that's all that's needed.

Sure ostrich up. No need to consider anything outside your predetermined convictions.

No one has a right to be served by anyone else. We can write, and attempt to enforce, laws that contradict that - but they are corrupt at the core, and violate rights rather than protect them.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Again. Nothing. If you got nothing, why respond at all? Just skulk away with your unchallenged opinions.

I haven't seen anything that could be considered a challenge. Just you mumbling some silly crap that means nothing.

That's a handy response to avoid ideas you don't want to consider. But you'll never learn much that way - either about your own views or others.

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to discuss differing opinions? Are you just doing PR?

 

[oreo]

Right. The electric company was part of the wedding party, along with the people who sold them the ice for the punch.

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Abortion is an already settled 45 year old Supreme court issue, that's here to stay. Why in the world you thought you could legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. is astounding. Here is Niel Gorsuch, (Trump's nominee for SCOTUS) comments on abortion.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

But what you have done is killed the Republican party with it.

2nd annual women's march January 20, 2018

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

1st women's march held the day after Trump was inagurated, January 20, 2017

Woman's march pictures
For many more pictures go to this link on this board and you;ll probably find your home state there.

You have awoken a sleeping giant in this country, by continually attacking the intelligence and intregrity of women You didn't learn a dam thing from the loss in 2012, and your crusade to nowhere gets worse and worse every year. it's chases off more and more of the largest voting block in this country (women) every year you put abortion (Roe v Wade) on a political platform. A place where it never belonged.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

There is a blue wave building up in the Atlantic right now. For more of the writing on the wall for Republicans this coming November, and with stats on all these special elections, and yuuuge swings toward Democrats along with more PICTURES go to this link on this board.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's coming.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok then, I guess the only answer is to force religious businesses to comply with the wishes of anyone who wants to patron their store, and there should absolutely be no organizations who are allowed to refuse anyone based on religion, races, or orientation, correct?

If that is your stance, then that opens a lot of problems for certain organizations across America.


Also, electric companies are public utilities, and are not privately owned, and if someone purchased ice out of a machine, I don't see how they would have any control.


I'm not talking about discrimination here, I'm talking about actual religious beliefs. You still haven't answered my other question. Do you believe that a Muslim butcher should be forced to handle and process pork products? By what you are saying here, they should be made to do so, even though according to their religion, they are not supposed to touch any unclean meat, but, that doesn't matter, a person should be able to bring in all the hogs they want, and that butcher can not refuse to process them.

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Abortion is an already settled 45 year old Supreme court issue, that's here to stay. Why in the world you thought you could legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. is astounding.

But what you have done is killed the Republican party with it.

2nd annual women's march January 20, 2018

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

1st women's march held the day after Trump was inagurated, January 20, 2017

= =

For many more pictures go to this link on this board and you;ll probably find your home state there.

You have awoken a sleeping giant in this country, by continually attacking the intelligence and intregrity of women in this country. You didn't a dam thing from the loss in 2012, and your crusade to nowhere gets worse and worse every year.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

There is a blue wave building up in the Atlantic right now. For more of the writing on the wall for Republicans this coming November, and with stats on all these special election, and swings toward Democrats along with more PICTURES go to this link on this board.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's coming.

I wasn't talking about the legality of abortion, I was talking about how the left leverages moral issues while standing firm on abortion.

 

[oreo]

If a Muslim butcher is hired by a secular company, yes he should accept the job requirements, including butchering pork.

The same for s pharmacist who believes birth control is wrong. Dispense the pills or find other work.

However, a Muslim butcher shop is not required to sell pork or provide pork products for customers.

Anti-discrimination laws say that if you provide goods or services, you must sell them to everyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

If you apply for a job, you should be prepared to do the job. If aspects of the job violate your beliefs or ethics, find s different job.

Ok then, at least we got that settled. So, no company can refuse any service for any reason based on race, religious beliefs, gender, orientation or any of that. Got it.

But what about that part of the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free EXERCISE of religion. It doesn't say the freedom to worship, it says the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs. Now, how does that fit in to these public accommodation laws?

I didn't say that. There are valid reasons to refuse service, but your religion isn't one of them.
My rights end when they interfere with your rights. That's how it works. Mormans encouraged their believers to marry very young girls. It was an instruction in their religious cannon. Should their desire to marry and knock up an 11 year old girl be considered part of their freedom to to exercize their religious beliefs?

You seem to always go right for the extreme example of a morality issue. So, by that standard, I have to concede this argument. I can see that you are not going to understand what I am trying to say, as you always run to the extreme, be it human sacrifice, or child molestation, as the left so frequently does.

This is why it is so hard to debate the left, because they always bring their argument from a position of emotion, yet those same people have no problem killing unborn babies.

It's unfortunate, because there are organizations out there that enjoy exclusion protection by the government, who, by your standard, would have to give up that ability, and in the process, destroy some very long standing traditions and institutions.

Abortion is an already settled 45 year old Supreme court issue, that's here to stay. Why in the world you thought you could legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. is astounding.

But what you have done is killed the Republican party with it.

2nd annual women's march January 20, 2018

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

1st women's march held the day after Trump was inagurated, January 20, 2017

= =

For many more pictures go to this link on this board and you;ll probably find your home state there.

You have awoken a sleeping giant in this country, by continually attacking the intelligence and intregrity of women in this country. You didn't a dam thing from the loss in 2012, and your crusade to nowhere gets worse and worse every year.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump

There is a blue wave building up in the Atlantic right now. For more of the writing on the wall for Republicans this coming November, and with stats on all these special election, and swings toward Democrats along with more PICTURES go to this link on this board.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's coming.

I wasn't talking about the legality of abortion, I was talking about how the left leverages moral issues while standing firm on abortion.

You screwed yourself. Don't tell me you don't question the legality of abortion. If you didn't, you would not have used it as an example.