Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Lots. Performing at an inauguration is not part of being a business
open to the public. It's a dedicated, one-off service not available to
the public.

You're so stupid.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
US law. Morals don't apply to the law. Never have, never will.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.

<chuckle>

You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.
<chuckle>
AWw, lookie,
See? You already *have* gone back to first grade, "kiddo."

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
the
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
latter is
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
because
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.

My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
MarkA
2016-12-29 01:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to same
sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open
to the public), the former is based on what the person believes,
the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for
a politician because he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.
It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get
the time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that
if a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,
then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a
religious objection to following the law, then he should be granted an
exemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious
belief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is
intolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs
*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are
bullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve
protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
--
MarkA

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."

He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had not
included a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, in
addition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, with
the possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, if
only to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom were
ministers.

Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.

For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.

Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."
He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had not
included a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, in
addition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, with
the possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, if
only to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom were
ministers.
Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.
For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.
Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?
Kevin R
It is if part of your political ideology is that government is supposed to "FIX" everything. They think that equality of access is supposed to equal equality of outcome. They always seem to be able to think up a reason why they don't have to give yo ALL your rights or why they need to chip just a little bit away for the children or the poor, or the underprivileged. It's always something. Emily Latella.

I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral. Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that campi) is frightening. They are actually talking about free speech as if it is a bad thing and try and keep anybody who has ideas different than theirs from speaking. Political correctness is the death of freedom.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.
For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.
Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?
Kevin R
It is if part of your political ideology is that government is supposed to "FIX" everything. They think that equality of access is supposed to equal equality of outcome. They always seem to be able to think up a reason why they don't have to give yo ALL your rights or why they need to chip just a little bit away for the children or the poor, or the underprivileged. It's always something. Emily Latella.
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral. Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.

[quote]

Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi
Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative Campo Campis
Accusative Campum Campos
Ablative Campo Campis
Vocative Campe Campi

[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus

In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
is frightening. They are actually talking about free speech as if
it is a bad thing and try and keep anybody who has ideas different
than theirs from speaking. Political correctness is the death of freedom.
I agree with this last. A private university could choose to set
itself up as a "safe space" and persecute any and all dissenters.
It would be within the rights of the owners of the place, regardless
of how extraordinarily hostile it would be to the spirit of free inquiry
required for the establishment of a genuine place of scholarship.
It would be monumentally stupid behavior, which, unfortunately, means
that it has its supporters.

Kevin R
Smiler
2016-12-31 03:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another
person aggresses against him.
For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.
Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?
Kevin R
It is if part of your political ideology is that government is supposed
to "FIX" everything. They think that equality of access is supposed to
equal equality of outcome. They always seem to be able to think up a
reason why they don't have to give yo ALL your rights or why they need
to chip just a little bit away for the children or the poor, or the
underprivileged. It's always something. Emily Latella.
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that
helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral.
Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that
campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[quote]
Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative
Post by Kevrob
Campo Campis Accusative Campum Campos Ablative
Campo
Post by Kevrob
Campis Vocative Campe Campi
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia, like datum and data. However, the common
usage appears to now be referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling checker
accepts both versions.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-31 06:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Smiler, the wicked fires of lust have melted thee in thy own grease.
Post by Smiler
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
You completely stupid fucking oaf. English is a dynamic language. If it
stayed the same, the way you no doubt want it, we'd all be fucking
grunting still.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-31 06:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Smiler, thou, minion, are too saucy. Ye rancid enemy inveterate, ye
Post by Smiler
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
And where's that proof you owe me?

Smiler: Now you're trying to confuse him with sciencey stuff.

Me: ...wrote the fuckwit who believes the moon orbits earth the same
way a ball on a string spun about the head rotates.

Smiler: I don't believe it, liar. I know it and can prove it.

Me: Go ahead. Prove it.

<crickets>
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Kevrob
2016-12-31 22:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
(or is that campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia,
I'd avoid stadia as a plural in English, saving it for the
old Roman unit of length. (1 stadium, 2 stadia, etc.)

http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-life/roman-weights-and-measures.htm

Not that the unit of measure surfaces very often.
Post by Smiler
like datum and data. However, the common
usage appears to now be referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling checker
accepts both versions.
And if the meeting has only one item to be discussed, the list
is an agendum? :)

Kevin R

[1972 Suffolk County, NY Caesar Champion -
then I stopped taking Latin.:) ]
Smiler
2017-01-01 04:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
(or is that campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia,
I'd avoid stadia as a plural in English, saving it for the old Roman
unit of length. (1 stadium, 2 stadia, etc.)
http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-life/roman-weights-and-
measures.htm
Not that the unit of measure surfaces very often.
Unless you happen to be an ancient Roman estate agent [realtor] selling
land at XII denarii per square stadium...
Post by Smiler
like datum and data. However, the common usage appears to now be
referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling checker accepts both versions.
And if the meeting has only one item to be discussed, the list is an
agendum? :)
You're very lucky if you've been to a meeting with only one item to be
discussed.
What about the usual last two items..."Any Other Business." and "Date,
time and place of next meeting."? :-)

Also, an addendum may cover many items, but if there is more than one
addendum they're addenda.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Alex W.
2017-01-01 15:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that
helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral.
Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that
campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[quote]
Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative
Post by Kevrob
Campo Campis Accusative Campum Campos Ablative
Campo
Post by Kevrob
Campis Vocative Campe Campi
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia, like datum and data. However, the common
usage appears to now be referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling checker
accepts both versions.
The classic example here would be the plural of "virus"...
Smiler
2017-01-02 03:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that
helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral.
Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that
campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[quote]
Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative
Post by Kevrob
Campo Campis Accusative Campum Campos Ablative
Campo
Post by Kevrob
Campis Vocative Campe Campi
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia, like datum and data. However, the common
usage appears to now be referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling
checker accepts both versions.
The classic example here would be the plural of "virus"...
Yep. I didn't catch that one. Too much of a strain.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Nadegda
2017-01-02 03:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I fear that without a rebirth of awareness of the philosophy that
helped create our Constitution, we will be in a downward spiral.
Looking at the things they do on college campuses (or is that
campi)....
In Latin, 2nd declension, masculine.
[quote]
Singular Plural
Nominative Campus Campi Genitive Campi Camporum
Dative
Post by Kevrob
Campo Campis Accusative Campum Campos Ablative
Campo
Post by Kevrob
Campis Vocative Campe Campi
[/quote]- http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:campus
I guessed it would have been campi, like terminus and termini or fungus
and fungi.
Post by Kevrob
In English, campuses. Not all loan words retain their Latin plurals.
Regrettably true.
I was taught that the plural of referendum was referenda and that the
plural of stadium was stadia, like datum and data. However, the common
usage appears to now be referendums and stadiums. My UK spelling
checker accepts both versions.
The classic example here would be the plural of "virus"...
Yep. I didn't catch that one. Too much of a strain.
THAT EXPLAINS THE LUMPS ON EITHER SIDE OF YOUR NECK, DUMMY!
--
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to same
sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open
to the public), the former is based on what the person believes,
the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for
a politician because he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.
It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get
the time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that
if a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,
then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a
religious objection to following the law, then he should be granted an
exemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious
belief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is
intolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs
*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are
bullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve
protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
--
MarkA
You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott
It seems that governments need to feel like they are doing something, so when the big problems are essentially solved and have had all the things done that can be done, hey start in on things that they think should be, not what is right.

That's how we get laws like hate crime legislation that seems like it does something, but doesn't change a thing.

The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

Ayn Rand
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
the
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
latter is
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
because
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that you have because you are human and because without them it is impossible to be considered free.

I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
Post by Rudy Canoza
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Wrong.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
See above.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
I think out basic human rights the rights that are unalienable are the rights that any human being needs in order to live. Foremost being property as all other rights are related to property. The fact that the government has chosen to redefine public place to include place open to the public is just another one of those intrusive and unwarranted laws produced by government that create more harm they solve.

A business is not a public place it is a private property open to the public and
the owner,(not the government) is the only one that has any say in who he chooses to allow to purchase his goods or services. Why should government tell you what you can do or who you HAVE to serve on your property? Why does being open to the public mean your right should be abridged? If someone can't get served at whatever business they just go where they can be served. There is no business that is so important that the right to property is nullified.


The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
“Man’s Rights” Ayn Rand

The Virtue of Selfishness
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal. Ayn Rand
Smiler
2016-12-31 03:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake
for a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to
same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist
to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform
for a politician because he does not like that person's
politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the
victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black owned
business would not get the time of day from a federal civil rights
office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental human rights
that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the even uglier
dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based on - indeed! -
racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any way
based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we
have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and
they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we are
not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political and a
human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that
you have because you are human and because without them it is impossible
to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the right
to own a handgun?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Martin
2016-12-31 15:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake
for a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to
same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist
to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform
for a politician because he does not like that person's
politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the
victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black owned
business would not get the time of day from a federal civil rights
office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental human rights
that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the even uglier
dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based on - indeed! -
racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any way
based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we
have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and
they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we are
not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political and a
human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that
you have because you are human and because without them it is impossible
to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the right
to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire. Are not
murder mysteries a British invention? They are certainly popular over
there, suggesting a deep-seated yearning on the part of nice English
people to bump _someone_ off.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-01-01 02:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at
a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake a
wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist
to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform
for a politician because he does not like that person's
politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free
to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no
reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws
violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom
of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be
the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the
even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based on
- indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we
have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and
they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we
are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political
and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that
you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire.
The murder rate there far exceeds that in the rest of the UK. Property
values, as a consequence, are extremely low. I have no wish to move there,
as I'd rather live in a 108 year old modest house in East London than die
in a mansion in Midsomershire.
Post by Don Martin
Are not murder mysteries a British invention?
Even if they're not, we'll still claim them as ours.
Post by Don Martin
They are certainly popular over there, suggesting a deep-seated yearning
on the part of nice English people to bump _someone_ off.
But that deep-seated yearning is kept in control, unlike the similar
yearning in the US, where there are about 8 times as many murders per
capita.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Martin
2017-01-01 19:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at
a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake a
wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist
to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform
for a politician because he does not like that person's
politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free
to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no
reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws
violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom
of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be
the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the
even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based on
- indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we
have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and
they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we
are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political
and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that
you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire.
The murder rate there far exceeds that in the rest of the UK. Property
values, as a consequence, are extremely low. I have no wish to move there,
as I'd rather live in a 108 year old modest house in East London than die
in a mansion in Midsomershire.
Ah, that would explain the real estate peculiarities of the place:
those who serve the nouveaux riches (who seem to own most of the
Midsomer mansions, much to the distress of the "old" Midsomer
families) live in houses I could not afford with double the salary.
When the price of the mansions goes down, the value of the newer,
smaller places (post Norman conquest) must take a harder hit.
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Are not murder mysteries a British invention?
Even if they're not, we'll still claim them as ours.
Post by Don Martin
They are certainly popular over there, suggesting a deep-seated yearning
on the part of nice English people to bump _someone_ off.
But that deep-seated yearning is kept in control, unlike the similar
yearning in the US, where there are about 8 times as many murders per
capita.
Yearnings kept in control has never been an American ideal. Do we
complain about your blood sports?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-01-02 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform
at a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a
moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake
artist to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a
same sex wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse
to perform for a politician because he does not like that
person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It
is far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be
free to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for
no reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination
laws violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and
freedom of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality
or impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to
be the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is
the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law
based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that
we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist
and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order.
If we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a
political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights
that you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire.
The murder rate there far exceeds that in the rest of the UK. Property
values, as a consequence, are extremely low. I have no wish to move there,
as I'd rather live in a 108 year old modest house in East London than
die in a mansion in Midsomershire.
Ah, that would explain the real estate peculiarities of the place: those
who serve the nouveaux riches (who seem to own most of the Midsomer
mansions, much to the distress of the "old" Midsomer families)
There are few 'old' Midsomer families, as most have killed themselves off
or are serving long prison sentences for murder. The Midsomershire County
Police have a 100% success rate in solving the murders and bringing the
culprits to trial.
live in houses I could not afford with double the salary.
But they are dirt cheap, as nobody wants to live there.
The defence lawyers have to be paid, so a quick sale is needed.
When the price of the mansions goes down, the value of the newer,
smaller places (post Norman conquest) must take a harder hit.
Most of the houses there are post Norman Wisdom!
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Are not murder mysteries a British invention?
Even if they're not, we'll still claim them as ours.
Post by Don Martin
They are certainly popular over there, suggesting a deep-seated
yearning on the part of nice English people to bump _someone_ off.
But that deep-seated yearning is kept in control, unlike the similar
yearning in the US, where there are about 8 times as many murders per
capita.
Yearnings kept in control has never been an American ideal. Do we
complain about your blood sports?
What blood sports? Fox hunting with dogs has been banned for some time,
and most foxes are now urban living. There are many around here, in East
London. Until recently, my neighbour had a vixen and three cubs living in
her garden.
Complaining about our blood sports would be rather hypocritical, as there
are plenty of hunters in the US.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Nadegda
2017-01-02 03:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform
at a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a
moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake
artist to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a
same sex wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse
to perform for a politician because he does not like that
person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It
is far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be
free to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for
no reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination
laws violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and
freedom of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality
or impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to
be the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is
the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law
based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that
we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist
and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order.
If we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a
political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights
that you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire.
The murder rate there far exceeds that in the rest of the UK. Property
values, as a consequence, are extremely low. I have no wish to move there,
as I'd rather live in a 108 year old modest house in East London than
die in a mansion in Midsomershire.
Ah, that would explain the real estate peculiarities of the place: those
who serve the nouveaux riches (who seem to own most of the Midsomer
mansions, much to the distress of the "old" Midsomer families)
There are few 'old' Midsomer families, as most have killed themselves off
or are serving long prison sentences for murder. The Midsomershire County
Police have a 100% success rate in solving the murders and bringing the
culprits to trial.
live in houses I could not afford with double the salary.
But they are dirt cheap, as nobody wants to live there.
The defence lawyers have to be paid, so a quick sale is needed.
When the price of the mansions goes down, the value of the newer,
smaller places (post Norman conquest) must take a harder hit.
Most of the houses there are post Norman Wisdom!
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Are not murder mysteries a British invention?
Even if they're not, we'll still claim them as ours.
Post by Don Martin
They are certainly popular over there, suggesting a deep-seated
yearning on the part of nice English people to bump _someone_ off.
But that deep-seated yearning is kept in control, unlike the similar
yearning in the US, where there are about 8 times as many murders per
capita.
Yearnings kept in control has never been an American ideal. Do we
complain about your blood sports?
What blood sports? Fox hunting with dogs has been banned for some time,
and most foxes are now urban living. There are many around here, in East
London. Until recently, my neighbour had a vixen and three cubs living in
her garden.
Complaining about our blood sports would be rather hypocritical, as there
are plenty of hunters in the US.
Hunting us believers in God for a start, you stench-ridden unbeliever. I
am going to make it *MY* "JOB" *TO* "HUNT* "YOU" *DOWN*, as God is my
witness!
--
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Alex W.
2017-01-02 11:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform
at a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a
moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake
artist to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a
same sex wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse
to perform for a politician because he does not like that
person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It
is far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be
free to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for
no reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination
laws violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and
freedom of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality
or impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to
be the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is
the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law
based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that
we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist
and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order.
If we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a
political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights
that you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire.
The murder rate there far exceeds that in the rest of the UK. Property
values, as a consequence, are extremely low. I have no wish to move there,
as I'd rather live in a 108 year old modest house in East London than
die in a mansion in Midsomershire.
Ah, that would explain the real estate peculiarities of the place: those
who serve the nouveaux riches (who seem to own most of the Midsomer
mansions, much to the distress of the "old" Midsomer families)
There are few 'old' Midsomer families, as most have killed themselves off
or are serving long prison sentences for murder. The Midsomershire County
Police have a 100% success rate in solving the murders and bringing the
culprits to trial.
Prison guard in Midsomer ... a job with a lifetime employment guarantee.
Post by Smiler
live in houses I could not afford with double the salary.
But they are dirt cheap, as nobody wants to live there.
The defence lawyers have to be paid, so a quick sale is needed.
Bijoux village cottage,reed-thatched, three bedrooms, two bathrooms,
room for a pony, only two previous murder victims.
Post by Smiler
When the price of the mansions goes down, the value of the newer,
smaller places (post Norman conquest) must take a harder hit.
Most of the houses there are post Norman Wisdom!
ROFL

Built after 2010? Despite the general political consensus that we have
a national housing shortage?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Are not murder mysteries a British invention?
Even if they're not, we'll still claim them as ours.
Post by Don Martin
They are certainly popular over there, suggesting a deep-seated
yearning on the part of nice English people to bump _someone_ off.
But that deep-seated yearning is kept in control, unlike the similar
yearning in the US, where there are about 8 times as many murders per
capita.
Yearnings kept in control has never been an American ideal. Do we
complain about your blood sports?
What blood sports? Fox hunting with dogs has been banned for some time,
and most foxes are now urban living. There are many around here, in East
London. Until recently, my neighbour had a vixen and three cubs living in
her garden.
... and they have been known to come into people's homes and even to
attack babies.
Post by Smiler
Complaining about our blood sports would be rather hypocritical, as there
are plenty of hunters in the US.
I am a fox hunt saboteur myself.
I go out the night before and shoot the fox.

Alex W.
2017-01-01 15:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the right
to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire. Are not
murder mysteries a British invention? They are certainly popular over
there, suggesting a deep-seated yearning on the part of nice English
people to bump _someone_ off.
Judging by their recent efforts, I am fully confident that the Chinese
will claim to have invented the murder mystery, just as they claim to
have invented everything else.
Smiler
2017-01-02 03:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
Don't blame us for your failure to move to Midsomershire. Are not
murder mysteries a British invention? They are certainly popular over
there, suggesting a deep-seated yearning on the part of nice English
people to bump _someone_ off.
Judging by their recent efforts, I am fully confident that the Chinese
will claim to have invented the murder mystery, just as they claim to
have invented everything else.
Shew Lok Ho Mes and Dr. Wot Sun?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kevrob
2016-12-31 22:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake
for a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to
same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist
to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform
for a politician because he does not like that person's
politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the
victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black owned
business would not get the time of day from a federal civil rights
office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental human rights
that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the even uglier
dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based on - indeed! -
racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any way
based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that we
have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist and
they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If we are
not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a political and a
human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights that
you have because you are human and because without them it is impossible
to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the right
to own a handgun?
On a continuum from absolute freedom to none at all, I'd put UK subjects
closer to free than oppressed, but losing the right to keep and bear arms,
not to mention the right to silence in criminal proceedings has pushed
Brits away from an ideal, some. There are undoubtedly areas where a
US citizen is less free. The EU has better privacy protection for
one thing.

Kevin R
Smiler
2017-01-01 03:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Smiler
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at
a presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition to the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding cake for a same sex couple because you have a
moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business
open to the public), the former is based on what the person
believes, the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake
artist to refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a
same sex wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse
to perform for a politician because he does not like that
person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is
far different to refuse service because of who someone is
(immutable trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free
to refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no
reason at all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination
laws violate *fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom
of contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or
impartiality. It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be
the victim of racial discrimination at the hands of a black
owned business would not get the time of day from a federal
civil rights office. Even beyond the violation of fundamental
human rights that anti-discrimination laws impose, there is the
even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of the law based
on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally
objectionable about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's
wrong with them is that they violate people's "free exercise"
rights, but that's purely a *political* right that is not in any
way based on fundamental human rights.
I disagree. The Constitution and common sense should tell you that
we have unalienable rights, rights that we possess because we exist
and they are necessary in order to exist, not just to keep order. If
we are not allowed to freely exercise our rights it is both a
political and a human rights issue.
To be born human is to be possessed of unalienable rights, rights
that you have because you are human and because without them it is
impossible to be considered free.
So I cannot be considered free because, as a Brit, I don't have the
right to own a handgun?
On a continuum from absolute freedom to none at all, I'd put UK subjects
closer to free than oppressed, but losing the right to keep and bear arms,
But we do have the right to safely keep arms, but only for specific
activities and certain types of arms (shotguns and single action rifles
only. Handguns are banned) under strict conditions.
Post by Kevrob
not to mention the right to silence in criminal proceedings has pushed
Brits away from an ideal, some.
We still have the right to silence, nobody can be forced to speak, but
that silence, at arrest, may prevent some evidence from being presented in
court.
Post by Kevrob
There are undoubtedly areas where a US citizen is less free.
The EU has better privacy protection for one thing.
We don't yet know whether that will stay after Brexit.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
NoBody
2016-12-30 15:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Please cite it for us.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 18:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
rabbits and pantywaists
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
NoBody
2016-12-31 15:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
Siri Cruise
2016-12-31 16:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NIV
'queer' isn't in the Bible.

There's maybe one reference to gays in the gospel. Those who are born eunuchs
might mean gay. Otherwise nothing, and Jesus never said to refuse service to
gays. He didn't give any commandments specific to baking or cakes.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
radar range
2016-12-31 17:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
Neither are snowmobiles and satellites....SO??????
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 17:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith
says "don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NI
V
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
There's maybe one reference to gays in the gospel. Those who are born
eunuchs might mean gay. Otherwise nothing, and Jesus never said to
refuse service to gays. He didn't give any commandments specific to
baking or cakes.
What about the prohibiton against sex outside marriage?

Of course there was Sodom and Gomorrah.

Or of course:

Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is
detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads

Silly rabbit. Facts are hard.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Siri Cruise
2016-12-31 18:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith
says "don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NI
V
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
There's maybe one reference to gays in the gospel. Those who are born
eunuchs might mean gay. Otherwise nothing, and Jesus never said to
refuse service to gays. He didn't give any commandments specific to
baking or cakes.
What about the prohibiton against sex outside marriage?
'getting married'. They're getting married. Their sex will be inside a marriage.
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Of course there was Sodom and Gomorrah.
Which were punished for violating the duty of a host to strangers.
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Leviticus 18:22
Irrelevant to gentile christians.
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Silly rabbit. Facts are hard.
Yes.

Acts 15 New International Version (NIV)

The Council at Jerusalem

15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the
believers: ³Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses,
you cannot be saved.² 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and
debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other
believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this
question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through
Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news
made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were
welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported
everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up
and said, ³The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of
Moses.²
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ³Brothers, you know that some time
ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the
message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he
accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did
not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a
yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe
it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.²
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul
telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through
them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. ³Brothers,² he said, ³listen to me.
14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for
his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with
this, as it is written:
16 
³ŒAfter this I will return
    and rebuild David¹s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
17 
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things¹[b]‹
18 
    things known from long ago.[c]
19 ³It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the
Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling
them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the
meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been
preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on
every Sabbath.²

The Council¹s Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some
of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose
Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.
23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and
disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to
choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul‹
26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we
are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you
with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food
sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from
sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the
church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad
for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets,
said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time
there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return
to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in
Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ³Let us go back and visit the
believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how
they are doing.² 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them,
38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in
Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp
disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,
40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the
Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 18:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith
says "don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=
NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=
NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version
=NI V
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
There's maybe one reference to gays in the gospel. Those who are born
eunuchs might mean gay. Otherwise nothing, and Jesus never said to
refuse service to gays. He didn't give any commandments specific to
baking or cakes.
What about the prohibiton against sex outside marriage?
'getting married'. They're getting married. Their sex will be inside a marriage.
They cannot get married. Male may not marry male. Period, end of story.
They can have a civil union, they can have a legal agreement.

But they cannot be married in a Christian Church and have thier marriage
recognozed by the church.

The man not laying with another man part was really quite clear.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Of course there was Sodom and Gomorrah.
Which were punished for violating the duty of a host to strangers.
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Leviticus 18:22
Irrelevant to gentile christians.
Bullshit
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Silly rabbit. Facts are hard.
Yes.
Acts 15 New International Version (NIV)
The Council at Jerusalem
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the
believers: ³Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught
by Moses, you cannot be saved.² 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into
sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed,
along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the
apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their
way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how
the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very
glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church
and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had
done through them. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the
party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ³The Gentiles must be
circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.²
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ³Brothers, you know that
some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the
heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them,
just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for
he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test
God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our
ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the
grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.² 12 The
whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul
telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles
through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. ³Brothers,² he
said, ³listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first
intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The
16 
³ŒAfter this I will return
    and rebuild David¹s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
17 
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things¹[b]‹
18 
    things known from long ago.[c]
19 ³It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times
and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.²
The Council¹s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to
choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were
leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following
letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers,
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization
and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all
agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends
Barnabas and Paul‹ 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to
confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the
Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the
following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to
idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual
immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they
gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people
read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas,
who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the
believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the
believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent
them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they
and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ³Let us go back and visit the
believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and
see how they are doing.² 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called
Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because
he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the
work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.
Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and
left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went
through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
I see you've mastered the art of trying to overwhelm the opposition by
posting useless, off point bullshit.

Didn't work.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Siri Cruise
2016-12-31 18:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
I see you've mastered the art of trying to overwhelm the opposition by
posting useless, off point bullshit.
Didn't work.
Congratulations on denying Paul's ministry.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
radar range
2016-12-31 19:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Congratulations on denying Paul's ministry.
Congratulations on pretending again to be a Christian.

So will it take one day?
radar range
2016-12-31 19:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Congratulations on denying Paul's ministry.
Why do you still pretend to be a Christian?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 00:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
I see you've mastered the art of trying to overwhelm the opposition by
posting useless, off point bullshit.
Didn't work.
Congratulations on denying Paul's ministry.
Which did not address the issue.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
radar range
2016-12-31 18:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Leviticus 18:22
Irrelevant to gentile christians.
Given you are neither Christian, and barely a gentile, well...hypocrisy
marches on...
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-31 22:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas, ye are a subtle whore, a closet
lock and key of villainous secrets. Ye spur-galled double-meaning
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith
says "don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NI
V
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
There's maybe one reference to gays in the gospel. Those who are born
eunuchs might mean gay. Otherwise nothing, and Jesus never said to
refuse service to gays. He didn't give any commandments specific to
baking or cakes.
What about the prohibiton against sex outside marriage?
Of course there was Sodom and Gomorrah.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is
detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads
Silly rabbit. Facts are hard.
[QUOTE]
gospel
[/QUOTE]

HTH
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
radar range
2016-12-31 19:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Jesus never said to refuse service to
gays.
He was mute on astrophysics too, so?
NoBody
2017-01-01 18:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NIV
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
You DO understand that the tenets of one's faith does not necessarily
reside solely in the bible right?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 18:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NIV
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
You DO understand that the tenets of one's faith does not necessarily
reside solely in the bible right?
According to "Christian", such tenets are invalid if not found in the bible.
sugar glider
2017-01-01 18:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
According to "Christian",
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
sugar glider
2017-01-01 18:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
According to "Christian",
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Siri Cruise
2017-01-01 20:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Translation: You can't support what you've said and have ZERO
credibility.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bake&qs_version=NIV
'bake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=cake&qs_version=NIV
'cake' isn't in the New Testament.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queer&qs_version=NIV
'queer' isn't in the Bible.
You DO understand that the tenets of one's faith does not necessarily
reside solely in the bible right?
For protestants it is. Sola scriptura.
Post by NoBody
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Please cite it for us.
Don't demand a citation and then whine when one is provided. It makes you look
duplicitous.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 16:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
No translation needed. You aren't really interested in citations, and
would not and *cannot* read them anyway; it's just a dishonest and
cynical "debate" tactic.
radar range
2016-12-31 18:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
cynical "debate" tactic.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-31 18:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
cynical "debate" tactic.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-31 19:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
"debate" tactic.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 18:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
No translation needed. You're a joke - people who routinely write
"Translation: ..." and "cite" are always jokes. Your very methodology
in "debate" proves that you're a loser.
radar range
2016-12-31 18:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
you're a loser.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
And nothing in the law should require anybody to do business with another person that they don't like or don't agree with or if they part their hair wrong. Any damn reason they want. It is the business owner's property, not the state's or any government. Your property is YOURs, nobody else's and nobody else has the right to say who you must do business with.
You have the right to go somewhere else, not the right to force someone to do business with you.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.

Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals hsve lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.

There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 21:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.

No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 23:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority. The
specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great influence over
things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION, is that
a minority has less power then the majority. In this view, white
South Africans were the majority, and black South Africans and the
mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the numeric majority has
the majority of power, but not always. It is jargon, which often is
not surprisingly greeted with derision when the general public hears it,
and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started out as
"let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply for jobs
here. They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute oppression,
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we recruit
them and let them know they have a fair shot at being hired."

It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to be
discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what is supposed
to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called into question and
even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism because it doesn't yield the
number of hires of the favored groups. Never mind if what is being tested
for, or the experience requested, really has something to do with the
qualifications of a new hire. The practice is presumptively suspect.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
When something is so ingrained in the culture that kicking against it
makes it impossible to be listened to on other subjects.

Consider the history of the "libertarian macho flash."

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=17467.0

For example, Rand Paul got flack, and lost all traction when he
tried to run for President by alternately refusing to say he'd have
voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act _as finally voted on_ while
trying to say he supported great swaths of it. See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html?utm_term=.ebc4ecc2fe6a

His objections aren't measurably different from my own, but I am
not a sitting Senator, nor am I likely ever to be one, nor a potential
major party candidate for Prez.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
I think those institutions being forced to toe the line on Title IX
because they take Federal money should be made to get behind the free
speech provisions of Amendment 1. I may have to wait a good, long time
for that.

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-31 02:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority. The
specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great influence over
things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION, is that
a minority has less power then the majority. In this view, white
South Africans were the majority, and black South Africans and the
mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the numeric majority has
the majority of power, but not always. It is jargon, which often is
not surprisingly greeted with derision when the general public hears it,
and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started out as
"let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply for jobs
here.
It never should have become law. The law was fixed when it required every citizen be given the same rights and that nobody should be preveted from voting by havng to take idiotic tests like they used to make blacks take to qualify to register to vote.

They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute oppression,
Post by Kevrob
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we recruit
them and let them know they have a fair shot at being hired."
No problem with that unless it is doe with government force. It huld have been up to businesses to do that.
Post by Kevrob
It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to be
discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what is supposed
to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called into question and
even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism because it doesn't yield the
number of hires of the favored groups.
Once again equal or even extra rights do not guarantee equao outcome.

Never mind if what is being tested
Post by Kevrob
for, or the experience requested, really has something to do with the
qualifications of a new hire. The practice is presumptively suspect.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
When something is so ingrained in the culture that kicking against it
makes it impossible to be listened to on other subjects.
I thnk you stop when you are dead.
Post by Kevrob
Consider the history of the "libertarian macho flash."
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=17467.0
For example, Rand Paul got flack, and lost all traction when he
tried to run for President by alternately refusing to say he'd have
voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act _as finally voted on_ while
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html?utm_term=.ebc4ecc2fe6a
His objections aren't measurably different from my own, but I am
not a sitting Senator, nor am I likely ever to be one, nor a potential
major party candidate for Prez.
People need to listen vefore they make up their minds. Find out more in depth information.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
I think those institutions being forced to toe the line on Title IX
because they take Federal money should be made to get behind the free
speech provisions of Amendment 1. I may have to wait a good, long time
for that.
Kevin R
How can there be an exchange of ideas if people with different ones are not allowed to speak at the one place in the world where they should be welcomed, a university campus.

I don't expect the students who have been immersed in liberal ideas to accept every idea from every speaker, but they should at least allow themselves to hear what those ideas are.
walksalone
2016-12-31 18:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, David
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to
perform at a >>>>>>>>>> presidential inauguration because you
have a moral opposition >>>>> to >> >> > the incoming
president, and refusing to bake a wedding >>>>> cake for a >>
same sex couple because you have a moral >>>>>
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not
performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are,
one should >>>>> not >> be able to refuse to provide a
service based on their belief >>>>> system. >> They have no
problems with Christians driving people out >>>>> of business
for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking
the >>>>>> law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the
parallel because >>>>> it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers
are legally >>> bound to perform for anyone. What is being
pointed out is the hypocrisy >>> of requiring Christians to
be willing to violate the tenants of their >>> faith as a
condition of being in business, while allowing liberal >>>
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which
advance positions >>> counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals
refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on
race, sex or creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental
human rights. It does not violate "free exercise" of
religion. It's that simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who
contracted with governments and accepted this rule as a
condition of the contract, from discriminating among its
citizenry on the basis of irrelevant criteria such as race.
The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public accommodation"
extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th
Amendment) of the owners of businesses who wanted to
discriminate. Now, those people may be the scum of the earth,
but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made
everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special
advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why
women were included in this since there are more women than men
in his country, they created a situation where the government
helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority
person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages
they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority.
The specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great
influence over things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF
EDUCATION, is that a minority has less power then the majority. In
this view, white South Africans were the majority, and black South
Africans and the mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the
numeric majority has the majority of power, but not always. It is
jargon, which often is not surprisingly greeted with derision when
the general public hears it, and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another
group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY.
Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started
out as "let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply
for jobs here.
It never should have become law. The law was fixed when it required
every citizen be given the same rights and that nobody should be
preveted from voting by havng to take idiotic tests like they used to
make blacks take to qualify to register to vote.
They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute oppression,
Post by Kevrob
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we
recruit them and let them know they have a fair shot at being
hired."
No problem with that unless it is doe with government force. It huld
have been up to businesses to do that.
Post by Kevrob
It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to be
discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what is
supposed to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called
into question and even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism
because it doesn't yield the number of hires of the favored groups.
Once again equal or even extra rights do not guarantee equao outcome.
Never mind if what is being tested
Post by Kevrob
for, or the experience requested, really has something to do with
the qualifications of a new hire. The practice is presumptively
suspect.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to
businesses so one particular firm had the market for a good or
service (electric power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that
demanding those firms not discriminate had some logic to it.
It was just a short step to making all businesses conform. I
would have preferred that they would have died a death by
refusing to compete for the larger public's business, but this
is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting
for equality for everyone?
When something is so ingrained in the culture that kicking against
it makes it impossible to be listened to on other subjects.
I thnk you stop when you are dead.
Post by Kevrob
Consider the history of the "libertarian macho flash."
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=17467.0
For example, Rand Paul got flack, and lost all traction when he
tried to run for President by alternately refusing to say he'd have
voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act _as finally voted on_ while
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-re
writing-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91
c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html?utm_term=.ebc4ecc2fe6a
His objections aren't measurably different from my own, but I am
not a sitting Senator, nor am I likely ever to be one, nor a
potential major party candidate for Prez.
People need to listen vefore they make up their minds. Find out more in depth information.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects
supported segregation or even slavery, so that a "first
amendment" exemption to allow discrimination on racial grounds
would not have been beyond consideration. Given the civil war
amendments, insisting on that would not have played.
Kevin R
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
I think those institutions being forced to toe the line on Title IX
because they take Federal money should be made to get behind the
free speech provisions of Amendment 1. I may have to wait a good,
long time for that.
Kevin R
How can there be an exchange of ideas if people with different ones
are not allowed to speak at the one place in the world where they
should be welcomed, a university campus.
I don't expect the students who have been immersed in liberal ideas
to accept every idea from every speaker, but they should at least
allow themselves to hear what those ideas are.
--
Kevrob
2016-12-31 23:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, David
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to
Please, what was the point of replying to this without adding anything?

Kevin R
walksalone
2017-01-01 14:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5,
David Hartung wrote: >>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David
What is the moral difference between refusing
to
Please, what was the point of replying to this without adding
anything?
Kevin R
It was mis-sent. Assumed most would realise that by the subject if
nothing else.
HTH

walksalone who iks off to his corner for .00000000005picoseconds. When
no one is watching of course.

--
Alex W.
2017-01-01 14:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made
everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special
advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why
women were included in this since there are more women than men
in his country, they created a situation where the government
helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority
person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages
they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority.
The specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great
influence over things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF
EDUCATION, is that a minority has less power then the majority. In
this view, white South Africans were the majority, and black South
Africans and the mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the
numeric majority has the majority of power, but not always. It is
jargon, which often is not surprisingly greeted with derision when
the general public hears it, and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another
group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY.
Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started
out as "let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply
for jobs here.
It never should have become law. The law was fixed when it required
every citizen be given the same rights and that nobody should be
preveted from voting by havng to take idiotic tests like they used to
make blacks take to qualify to register to vote.
Perhaps not, but something had to be done. Federal laws and the US
constitution were persistently undermined by state laws and cultural
practices which no purpose other than to keep the status quo of having
white males at the top of the pile and everyone else in their place --
well below them.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute
oppression,
Post by Kevrob
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we
recruit them and let them know they have a fair shot at being
hired."
No problem with that unless it is doe with government force. It huld
have been up to businesses to do that.
It should have been. And business failed to do so. White men kept
hiring and promoting other white men. If you weren't white or a man,
you had to be three times as good and have skin as thick as the callus
on a rhino's backside just to get on the payroll -- and don't even think
about equal pay or trying to climb the greasy pole of a corporate career.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to
be discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what
is supposed to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called
into question and even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism
because it doesn't yield the number of hires of the favored groups.
Once again equal or even extra rights do not guarantee equao
outcome.
True.

What it should be able to do, though, is to establish and enforce equal
opportunity. This, though, may well prove quite impossible, I fear.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-31 01:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing
service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal
under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages
What "special advantages"?
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.

It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.

That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 19:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 20:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform, i.e. sign a contract to provide
their services, against their will? There is no overt or implied
contract for any private citizen to perform for any government official.
So what is the law that needs to be equally applied?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 20:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
Prove it.
Alex W.
2017-01-01 14:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
The entertainer enters into a contract with his audience to perform a
specific service: they get money from members of the audience, and in
return they deliver a live performance or a recorded song/album. That
is where the contract ends.

Fans or the general public have no claim on the entertainer's time or
talents simply by virtue of being a fan. And it's the same with the
baker: there is one single transaction, money for cake. The enjoyment
of that cake or even repeat custom does not entitle anyone to continued
services from that baker. Just because I may enjoy the bear claws by
the baker down the street does not allow me to demand and insist that he
bake all my wedding and birthday cakes.
Mitchell Holman
2017-01-01 15:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing
liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions
which advance positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and
secular beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise
permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then
they are doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is
correct. However typically, an entertainer does not serve the
general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them
and likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and
militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the
general public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings,
Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of
the constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general
public, and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black.
They are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or
race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their
will? And here I thought you were against forcing people to do
things they were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that
taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
The entertainer enters into a contract with his audience to perform a
specific service: they get money from members of the audience, and in
return they deliver a live performance or a recorded song/album. That
is where the contract ends.
Fans or the general public have no claim on the entertainer's time or
talents simply by virtue of being a fan. And it's the same with the
baker: there is one single transaction, money for cake. The enjoyment
of that cake or even repeat custom does not entitle anyone to
continued services from that baker. Just because I may enjoy the bear
claws by the baker down the street does not allow me to demand and
insist that he bake all my wedding and birthday cakes.
The public is entitled to shop freely in the
marketplace without being discriminated against
on the basis of religion.



U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21 › Subchapter II ›

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation, as defined in this section, without
discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
color, ------> religion <-------- or national origin.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
David Hartung
2017-01-02 00:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Alex W.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers
are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the
tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing
liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions
which advance positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and
secular beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise
permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then
they are doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is
correct. However typically, an entertainer does not serve the
general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them
and likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and
militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the
general public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings,
Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of
the constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general
public, and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black.
They are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or
race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their
will? And here I thought you were against forcing people to do
things they were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that
taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
The entertainer enters into a contract with his audience to perform a
specific service: they get money from members of the audience, and in
return they deliver a live performance or a recorded song/album. That
is where the contract ends.
Fans or the general public have no claim on the entertainer's time or
talents simply by virtue of being a fan. And it's the same with the
baker: there is one single transaction, money for cake. The enjoyment
of that cake or even repeat custom does not entitle anyone to
continued services from that baker. Just because I may enjoy the bear
claws by the baker down the street does not allow me to demand and
insist that he bake all my wedding and birthday cakes.
The public is entitled to shop freely in the
marketplace without being discriminated against
on the basis of religion.
U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21 › Subchapter II ›
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation, as defined in this section, without
discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
color, ------> religion <-------- or national origin.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
Now go back, read that law again and learn what is defined as a place of
public accommodation.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-01 15:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black.
They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
What law forces performers to perform,
The same laws that force a baker to create wedding cake.
The entertainer enters into a contract with his audience to perform a
specific service: they get money from members of the audience, and in
return they deliver a live performance or a recorded song/album. That
is where the contract ends.
Fans or the general public have no claim on the entertainer's time or
talents simply by virtue of being a fan. And it's the same with the
baker: there is one single transaction, money for cake. The enjoyment
of that cake or even repeat custom does not entitle anyone to continued
services from that baker. Just because I may enjoy the bear claws by
the baker down the street does not allow me to demand and insist that he
bake all my wedding and birthday cakes.
So you say neither the entertainer nor the baker can refuse that
"transaction" due to their discrimination of someone that is gay or
black or white or Christian or their Christian beliefs or gay beliefs?

Which makes those entertainers racist bigots for turning down TRUMP on
account of his religious beliefs and the fact that he is white and has
more white followers.

It's just racist and bigoted hate from Liberals. They preach against it
and then they engage in it. That makes then hypocrites as well.
--
That's Karma
First-Post
2016-12-30 20:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:08:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters

The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.

Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”

Lastly, notice that no conservatives are trying to make it into a
court issue. The backlash the restaurant is facing is strictly in the
form of citizens boycotting it with no mention of any attempt to go
after it legally in order to force it out of business.
That is the free market way as opposed to the liberal strong arm
method.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:08:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....
If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
If I was made of money I might go there and start a coffee shop across
the street and put that sign up “If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat
here! No Socialists” or maybe no sign at all.

And see if I could run that other asshole out of business.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Post by First-Post
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 01:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 œ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-vo
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law? You
just can't wait for the shooting to start, can you?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 01:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-vo
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Post by First-Post
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 01:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 œ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-
vo
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "“If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.”
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 01:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
benj
2016-12-31 02:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
So your idea is that being killed is the same inconvenience as having
someone refuse to bake you a gay wedding cake?

It is freedom of religion, not religious exceptions over all other
rights. You get to practice your religion so long as it does not
infringe on the rights of others. I don't think buying a wedding cake
from a certain bakery is a right. So in your book being closed on Sunday
(or Saturday if Jewish) is wrong and these places must be forced to stay
open to provide equal service to the atheist public?
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 02:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
So your idea is that being killed is the same inconvenience as having
someone refuse to bake you a gay wedding cake?
Of course not. But, they do share in common being generally-applicable
laws for which you don't get an conscience exemption.
Post by benj
It is freedom of religion, not religious exceptions over all other
rights. You get to practice your religion so long as it does not
infringe on the rights of others. I don't think buying a wedding cake
from a certain bakery is a right.
I'm sure you don't. But since you aren't our benevolent dictator, who
should get to decide which religious exemptions are permitted (because
they don't infringe on the rights of others) and which are prohibited
(because they do infringe on the rights of others)?
Post by benj
So in your book being closed on Sunday
(or Saturday if Jewish) is wrong and these places must be forced to stay
open to provide equal service to the atheist public?
Is there a law forcing businesses to be open on Sunday (or Saturday)?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 05:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.

I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only displays
your weak intellect.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 16:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only displays
your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-31 17:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Murdering them violates those others inalienable rights, while NOT
baking them a cake does NOT violate their rights. They have no right to
be made equal or rights to force you to bake them a cake which would be
forcing you into *involuntary servitude* which violates the 13th amendment.
--
That's Karma
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 17:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Murdering them violates those others inalienable rights, while NOT
baking them a cake does NOT violate their rights. They have no right to
be made equal or rights to force you to bake them a cake which would be
forcing you into *involuntary servitude* which violates the 13th amendment.
What he said.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 17:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and
you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.

How stupid are you?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 18:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and
you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and presumably
lesser harmful impacts would too.

Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 00:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and
you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and presumably
lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or ethnic
group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The blockhead cuts
off a source of income and risks condemnation by the community once the
truth is out.

But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 06:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and
you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and presumably
lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or ethnic
group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The blockhead cuts
off a source of income and risks condemnation by the community once the
truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 11:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience,
and you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and
presumably lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.

The problem with you progs is you have to make everything extra complicated
and then claim you are the only ones smart enough to figure it out.

Telling a minority they can't eat in your restaraunt may be reprehensible
but that does not give the government the authority to "do something about
it".
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 16:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience,
and you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and
presumably lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 20:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with
the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience,
and you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and
presumably lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...

But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted around.

What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted around.
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 20:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted around.
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Clearly you think you should be deciding for everyone else.

You think that if someone has an opinion or belief that is different than
yours that that person should not be allowed to earn a living.

Kinda like how the Nazis put Jewish businesses out of business.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 20:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that
should
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted
around.
Post by First-Post
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Clearly you think you should be deciding for everyone else.
No. Try answering the question this time.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 21:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that
should
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it out.
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted
around.
Post by First-Post
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Clearly you think you should be deciding for everyone else.
No. Try answering the question this time.
Yes exactly kike that. You have made it clear that if a business does not
beleive as you do that the government can go in and fine or imprison the
"offenders" or the "offended" may sue then into the ground, ie destroying
thier business.

How is that different the Juden verboten, comrade?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 21:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial
or
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by
the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that
should
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it
out.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted
around.
Post by First-Post
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Clearly you think you should be deciding for everyone else.
No. Try answering the question this time.
Yes exactly kike that. You have made it clear that if a business does not
beleive as you do that the government can go in and fine or imprison the
"offenders" or the "offended" may sue then into the ground, ie destroying
thier business.
How is that different the Juden verboten, comrade?
Evasion noted.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-02 02:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial
or
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by
the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm
worthy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that
should
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
subject only to community condemnation?
Death or physical injury. It doesn't require Solomon to figure it
out.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You aren't the benevolent dictator, so you still haven't answered my
question. *WHO* (note the emphasis) gets to decide?
Well since we all agree that physical assault is a breach of one;s
rights...
But of course that is much to simple for you. It has to be twisted
around.
Post by First-Post
What makes you think your "interpetation is the correct one?
I didn't give an interpretation. I asked *WHO* gets to decide. For
whatever reason, you can't/won't answer that question.
Clearly you think you should be deciding for everyone else.
No. Try answering the question this time.
Yes exactly kike that. You have made it clear that if a business does not
beleive as you do that the government can go in and fine or imprison the
"offenders" or the "offended" may sue then into the ground, ie destroying
thier business.
How is that different the Juden verboten, comrade?
Evasion noted.
I did. You don't have the intellect to understand it.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-01 17:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience,
and you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and
presumably lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
We call it the Constitution....

You change it by getting the people and therefore the States, to change
it with a very large and popular vote that is needed for an article 5
amendment.

To date we have decided that people are equal and they get no preference
under constitutional laws. they all get equal protection of the laws so
the laws have to be written to allow them to be equally enforced.

A law that is preferential to one group is NOT legal unless there is
something in the constitution that allows for that particular evasion
from equality as the Military is separate from the constitution and
prison is a slavery that the 13th amendment will allow after the person
has been duly convicted.
--
That's Karma
Alex W.
2017-01-01 22:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
{snip}
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience,
and you want to remain in business, yes.
Jawohl Herr Reichminister!
The same applies to laws which proscribe murder to someone whose
conscience requires them to perform human sacrifices. Jawohl?
Nein, Arschloch.
I;m sure it's convenient for you to conflate the two, but it only
displays your weak intellect.
What's the distinction?
One involves death, one involves inconvenience.
So, there are circumstances where the government can require you to
violate your conscience. Death would of course qualify, and
presumably lesser harmful impacts would too.
Now according to you, not being served in a restaurant is an
inconvenience, not a harm. But, since you aren't the benevolent
dictator, who ought to get to decide which cases cause harms and which
are merely inconveniences?
You know what? If some knothead doesn't want to serve some racial or
ethnic group in his restaraunt what business is it of yours. The
blockhead cuts off a source of income and risks condemnation by the
community once the truth is out.
But making him serve the racial or ethnic group is immoral.
You didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide what is a harm worthy
of legal proscription, and what is an inconvenience or harm that should
subject only to community condemnation?
We call it the Constitution....
You change it by getting the people and therefore the States, to change
it with a very large and popular vote that is needed for an article 5
amendment.
To date we have decided that people are equal and they get no preference
under constitutional laws. they all get equal protection of the laws so
the laws have to be written to allow them to be equally enforced.
Trouble is, when you look at American history the track record of
enacting and enforcing the ideal that all people are equal is a tad
spotty.

This may be not entirely unconnected to the fact that the ideal you cite
is not actually part of the constitution.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-12-31 02:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 1Ž2 in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-vo
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "³If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.²
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
If you hate blacks (or gays) so much you don't want to serve them, then
just make your business a private club.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Preston Hamblin
2016-12-31 02:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 1Ž2 in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-vo
ters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Just more of the same bigoted liberal arrogance of them believing that
they and they alone know who is worthy of being allowed to have
rights.
Imagine what the libs would be saying if any business had a sign on
the door that said "³If you voted for Hillary you cannot eat here! No
Socialists.²
That would be perfectly legal.
So a person has to violate thier conscience to conform with the law?
If serving blacks in your restaurant violates your conscience, and you
want to remain in business, yes.
If you hate blacks (or gays) so much you don't want to serve them, then
just make your business a private club.
It's not a question of "hating" anyone. The right to freedom of
association and freedom of contract are violated by anti-discrimination
laws. People *morally* have the right to discriminate against anyone
they choose, for any reason at all or for no particular reason at all
except caprice.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 02:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 02:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy, presumably
because there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a
difference between discriminating against someone because of who they
are versus what they believe.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 02:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 02:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?

You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 04:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 04:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The federalism issue is separate from the anti-discrimination laws
themselves.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 04:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The federalism issue is separate from the anti-discrimination laws
themselves.
It isn't. It is a violation of federalism for the federal government to
pass unethical anti-discrimination laws that are binding on private
entities not engaged in interstate commerce, and using a blatantly
contrived fiction of "interstate commerce" as the pretext.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 05:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing
anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The federalism issue is separate from the anti-discrimination laws
themselves.
It isn't. It is a violation of federalism for the federal government to
pass unethical anti-discrimination laws that are binding on private
entities not engaged in interstate commerce, and using a blatantly
contrived fiction of "interstate commerce" as the pretext.
It's separate because those arguments don't apply to state and local
anti-discrimination laws which isolate the acts themselves.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 04:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
And you keep refusing to respond to:

there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 04:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus
<chortle> So you've claimed but never supported
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Be that as it may, it is still immoral for the state to violate
someone's inherent natural rights by forbidding him to discriminate as
he sees fit. You don't have to like another person's criteria for
discrimination, but neither you nor the state have any ethical right to
stop him.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 05:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
there is a broad consensus
<chortle> So you've claimed but never supported
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Be that as it may,
... which means there isn't hypocrisy in supporting anti-discrimination
on the basis of race, but not ideology.
Post by Rudy Canoza
it is still immoral for the state to violate
someone's inherent natural rights by forbidding him to discriminate as
he sees fit. You don't have to like another person's criteria for
discrimination, but neither you nor the state have any ethical right to
stop him.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 17:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of
discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
there is a broad consensus
<chortle> So you've claimed but never supported
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
You didn't read that, little lying cynical fuckwit sophomore joshie. If
you had, you would have remarked that it says *nothing* regarding
discrimination by private entities. It talks of people's general views
toward "civil rights," job opportunities, schools integration, but no
mention of prohibiting businesses and private citizens from
discriminating on the basis of race. Also conspicuously absent from
that gushing left-wing flim-flam piece was any mention of quotas, which
the 1964 act absolutely ushered in.

That was very dishonest of you, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, but of
course expected.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Be that as it may,
... which means there isn't hypocrisy
No, it doesn't mean that.
Post by Rudy Canoza
it is still immoral for the state to violate
someone's inherent natural rights by forbidding him to discriminate as
he sees fit. You don't have to like another person's criteria for
discrimination, but neither you nor the state have any ethical right to
stop him.
Josh Rosenbluth
2016-12-31 17:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
there is a broad consensus
<chortle> So you've claimed but never supported
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
You didn't read that, little lying cynical fuckwit sophomore joshie. If
you had, you would have remarked that it says *nothing* regarding
discrimination by private entities.
The first figure asked about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was
needed to proscribe discrimination by private entities.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It talks of people's general views
toward "civil rights," job opportunities, schools integration, but no
mention of prohibiting businesses and private citizens from
discriminating on the basis of race. Also conspicuously absent from
that gushing left-wing flim-flam piece was any mention of quotas, which
the 1964 act absolutely ushered in.
Red Herring alert (quotas have no relevance to whether people who
support anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race but not ideology
are hypocrites).
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Be that as it may,
... which means there isn't hypocrisy
No, it doesn't mean that.
How so, if it is true that people accused of being hypocrites honestly
believe there is a difference between discriminating against someone
because of who they are versus what they believe?
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-31 17:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The first figure asked about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was
needed to proscribe discrimination by private entities.
Presuming the gummint has the authority to do so.

Which I do not agree they do.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 18:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
there is a broad consensus
<chortle> So you've claimed but never supported
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
You didn't read that, little lying cynical fuckwit sophomore joshie. If
you had, you would have remarked that it says *nothing* regarding
discrimination by private entities.
The first figure asked about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was
needed to proscribe discrimination by private entities.
No, it didn't, little fuckwit liar sophomore joshie. No text that
reads, or remotely can be construed as meaning, "discrimination by
private entities" appears anywhere on that page, shitbag liar.

The first figure, you fucking liar, is a bar chart of responses to the
polling statement "Civil Rights Act of 1964 Has Been Good for the
Country" - no mention of discrimination. The next figure addresses the
"Climate for Passage of the Civil Rights Act."

In fact, you lying shitbag, a search for the root "discriminat" - i.e.,
discriminate or discrimination - in the entire document turns up just
four instances:

* "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ushered in a new era in American civil
rights as discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
or national origin was outlawed."

* "President Johnson also paved the way for additional school
desegregation and the prohibition of discrimination in public places
and within federal agencies."

* "President Bush signed a new civil rights act into effect in 1991
which shored up measures to prevent discrimination in the workplace."

* "surveys conducted in March 2014 by CBS News found that 52% of
America believes that we can totally eliminate racial prejudice and
discrimination in the long run"

Now, because I know what a dishonest and sleazy little no-foreskin
shitbag you are, I can predict with confidence that you are going to
hang your hat - a yid-lid, of course - on the second one: "prohibition
of discrimination in public places." But that doesn't cut it. These
questions obviously do not ask people if they are aware that "public
accommodation" has been stretched - sophistry - to mean private
businesses that sell to the public. Furthermore, cocksucker, the text
of Title II of the act expressly invokes the corruption of "interstate
commerce" to say that if the business sells something that "moved in
[interstate] commerce," then the business itself is engaged in it.

Anyway, you lied about that page, little fuckwit sophomore - it doesn't
say what you claimed it did.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It talks of people's general views
toward "civil rights," job opportunities, schools integration, but no
mention of prohibiting businesses and private citizens from
discriminating on the basis of race. Also conspicuously absent from
that gushing left-wing flim-flam piece was any mention of quotas, which
the 1964 act absolutely ushered in.
Red Herring alert
No.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Be that as it may,
... which means there isn't hypocrisy
No, it doesn't mean that.
How so, if it is true that people accused of being hypocrites honestly
believe there is a difference between discriminating against someone
because of who they are versus what they believe?
Ha ha ha! You haven't shown that they "honestly" believe that, little
lying flim-flam artist.
Alex W.
2017-01-01 15:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.

I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.

But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 16:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.
I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.
But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Religion has held a special place throughout American history, whether
that is logically supportable or not.
Alex W.
2017-01-01 16:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.
I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.
But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Religion has held a special place throughout American history, whether
that is logically supportable or not.
And politics hasn't?

Yours is a nation that was founded not on race, culture, language,
geography or any other of the normal parameters which give other
countries and polities their shape. The US was founded on law and
politics. It is at the core of what you are.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 17:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.
I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.
But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Religion has held a special place throughout American history, whether
that is logically supportable or not.
And politics hasn't?
Not like religion as evidenced by 1) The First Amendment (explicitly
mentions religion), 2) anti-discrimination laws (political beliefs not
protected), and 3) Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (exemptions from
generally-applicable laws based on religion)
Post by Alex W.
Yours is a nation that was founded not on race, culture, language,
geography or any other of the normal parameters which give other
countries and polities their shape. The US was founded on law and
politics. It is at the core of what you are.
Sure, but that still doesn't mean political beliefs rise above religious
beliefs in legal protection.
Alex W.
2017-01-01 22:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.
I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.
But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Religion has held a special place throughout American history, whether
that is logically supportable or not.
And politics hasn't?
Not like religion as evidenced by 1) The First Amendment (explicitly
mentions religion), 2) anti-discrimination laws (political beliefs not
protected), and 3) Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (exemptions from
generally-applicable laws based on religion)
Post by Alex W.
Yours is a nation that was founded not on race, culture, language,
geography or any other of the normal parameters which give other
countries and polities their shape. The US was founded on law and
politics. It is at the core of what you are.
Sure, but that still doesn't mean political beliefs rise above religious
beliefs in legal protection.
I was not referring to any one set of beliefs "rising above" any other;
I merely pointed out the inconsistency of according special status to
one set of changeable and acquired beliefs.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Alex W.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
there is a broad consensus in this country that there is a difference
between discriminating against someone because of who they are versus
what they believe
Whether this is hypocritical is up for debate, but this stance certainly
is inconsistent.
I cannot help my DNA or the colour of my skin or a disability. These
are beyond my control or choice.
But I can choose whether or what to believe -- religion or politics or
any given social issue, it doesn't matter. My beliefs and convictions
are not congenital, they are formed and reformed throughout my life, and
subject to constant change. So it makes no logical sense to ban
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religion but to permit it on
the basis of politics.
Religion has held a special place throughout American history, whether
that is logically supportable or not.
And politics hasn't?
Not like religion as evidenced by 1) The First Amendment (explicitly
mentions religion), 2) anti-discrimination laws (political beliefs not
protected), and 3) Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (exemptions from
generally-applicable laws based on religion)
Post by Alex W.
Yours is a nation that was founded not on race, culture, language,
geography or any other of the normal parameters which give other
countries and polities their shape. The US was founded on law and
politics. It is at the core of what you are.
Sure, but that still doesn't mean political beliefs rise above religious
beliefs in legal protection.
I was not referring to any one set of beliefs "rising above" any other;
I merely pointed out the inconsistency of according special status to
one set of changeable and acquired beliefs.
I agree, but that is part of American law.
rbowman
2016-12-31 17:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The Federal government has abused that clause since Gibbons v. Ogden in
1824.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-31 17:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rbowman
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The Federal government has abused that clause since Gibbons v. Ogden in
1824.
The Jim Crow laws were State governments telling lunch counters who they
must serve.

If it is illegal for states.... and it's in the 14th amendment limiting
the Federal Government, the idea that calling a Jim Crow Law an
Affirmative Action law makes it any better is just a lie.

All laws where government decides for the private business who they must
serve and hire and fire, are JIM CROW LAWS and just as damaging as they
were when they were first created and violated the 14th amendment.
--
That's Karma
benj
2016-12-31 23:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by rbowman
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The Federal government has abused that clause since Gibbons v. Ogden in
1824.
The Jim Crow laws were State governments telling lunch counters who they
must serve.
If it is illegal for states.... and it's in the 14th amendment limiting
the Federal Government, the idea that calling a Jim Crow Law an
Affirmative Action law makes it any better is just a lie.
All laws where government decides for the private business who they must
serve and hire and fire, are JIM CROW LAWS and just as damaging as they
were when they were first created and violated the 14th amendment.
Well, sure Beamer, Democrats who invented the first jim Crow laws are
STILL pushing them only now they sell them as "affirmative action" or
civil "rights".
Alex W.
2017-01-01 15:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by rbowman
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The Federal government has abused that clause since Gibbons v. Ogden in
1824.
The Jim Crow laws were State governments telling lunch counters who they
must serve.
If it is illegal for states.... and it's in the 14th amendment limiting
the Federal Government, the idea that calling a Jim Crow Law an
Affirmative Action law makes it any better is just a lie.
All laws where government decides for the private business who they must
serve and hire and fire, are JIM CROW LAWS and just as damaging as they
were when they were first created and violated the 14th amendment.
Damaging for whom?

Example: if a law succeeds in increasing the rate of full-time
employment in the private sector among wheel-chair users from, say, 10%
to 20%, there will be a one-off cost to corporations in making
workplaces suitable for wheel-chairs. We can call this damaging.

On the other hand, those extra 10% will now pay taxes on their income,
helping to raise tax revenues and spread the overall tax burden for all
tax payers. That's not damage, that's a gain. On top of that, those
disabled workers will be much more self-reliant, thereby reducing
expenses and pressure on state services, families, insurances and
charities -- another gain.

So where is the actual damage?
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 18:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rbowman
Post by Rudy Canoza
The courts uphold left-wing interpretations, including (most infamously)
holding that the commerce clause allows the federal government to tell
lunch counters who they must serve.
The Federal government has abused that clause since Gibbons v. Ogden in
1824.
Yes, but they didn't begin abusing it specifically with respect to
telling private business firms and individuals that they are prohibited
from choosing with whom they associate and do business until 1964.
Don Kresch
2016-12-31 21:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 06:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
David Hartung
2017-01-01 11:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Really?

How do you come to this conclusion?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 16:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Really?
How do you come to this conclusion?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/association.htm

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241
Don Kresch
2017-01-01 13:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 17:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association, and it has nothing to do with the
Constitution or any other document.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 17:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
Post by Rudy Canoza
and it has nothing to do with the
Constitution or any other document.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 17:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business
association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
and it has nothing to do with the
Constitution or any other document.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 18:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
We are debating whether there is a general right to association. The
claim that there is one begs that question.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 18:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
We are debating whether there is a general right to association.
We are *not* debating that, little fuckwit sophomore joshie. It is
established that there is such a right.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-01 19:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
We are debating whether there is a general right to association. The
claim that there is one begs that question.
The FACT YOU CAN GET A RESTRAINING ORDER tells us that you have right
to association and that right can be enforced by law.
--
That's Karma
Alex W.
2017-01-01 22:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
We are debating whether there is a general right to association. The
claim that there is one begs that question.
The FACT YOU CAN GET A RESTRAINING ORDER tells us that you have right
to association and that right can be enforced by law.
And the fact that there are clear exemptions and restrictions concerning
the right to association ....

However, businesses/corporations are not natural persons. They are
legal persons. Therefore the automatic conferral of this or any other
right does not apply to them.
Don Kresch
2017-01-01 21:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
No question begging, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - there *is* a
general right of association,
... he said as he begged the question.
No, little fuckwit sophomore joshie, there was no question begging. You
lied.
We are debating whether there is a general right to association. The
claim that there is one begs that question.
No, no it doesn't.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-01 20:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
Why is the left so concerned with phalluses?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Don Kresch
2017-01-01 21:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading. Want to keep crying?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 22:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading.
No.

If there is no general right of association, then it is perfectly
logical to conclude that an association right exists only for one's
personal life (or for only one's business life).

By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Don Kresch
2017-01-02 02:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading.
No.
Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Voting is immoral.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-02 02:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading.
No.
Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Voting is immoral.
1) Amazing! and 2) SFW.
Don Kresch
2017-01-02 03:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading.
No.
Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Voting is immoral.
1) Amazing! and 2) SFW.
There is no right to vote in the first place. That which is
immoral one has no right to do.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-02 03:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA. The burden
falls on the government to justify a law only if a fundamental right is
at stake. Thus, you have to first determine - without a burden on
either side - whether business associations are a fundamental right.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Voting is immoral.
1) Amazing! and 2) SFW.
There is no right to vote in the first place. That which is
immoral one has no right to do.
Amazing!
Don Kresch
2017-01-02 04:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By way of analogy, not permitting minors to vote is not a special
pleading fallacy because there is no general right to vote regardless of
age.
Voting is immoral.
1) Amazing! and 2) SFW.
There is no right to vote in the first place. That which is
immoral one has no right to do.
Amazing!
No, it's really not.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-02 04:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
How does the government justify forcing you to pass health inspections
to keep your business open?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-02 07:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
How does the government justify forcing you to pass health inspections
non sequitur
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-02 07:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
That's not the way constitutional law
Sophistry. We're not looking for an explanation of the mechanics of the
law, little fuckwit no-foreskin sophomore joshie.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-02 07:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:50:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper. Nor a deity, for
that matter. But it is the same right in both cases: right of
association. Otherwise you're guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
You don't want to do that, DO YOU?
You reach the conclusion that I committed the special pleading fallacy
(applying the association right differently in personal and business
contexts) by first committing the fallacy of begging the question.
No, no I didn't.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Namely, you assumed there is a general right of association that is the
same in one's personal and business life.
It necessarily is or else you commit the fallacy of special
pleading.
No.
Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If there is no general right of association,
Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
How so?
LOL!
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 17:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your "special pleading fallacy" comment fits Mr Rosenbluth's usual claims
quite naturally. Thanks for pointing that out.
*What* comment? *Whose* comment, you illiterate English-mangling
shit-4-braincell cocksucker? I don't see any comment to which you're
replying in your fuckwittery, and I don't see any poster's name. You've
erased it all again, cuntflaps.

Fuck off and stay fucked off, cocksucker, until you learn how to do this
right. You're doing it wrong, every time.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 17:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
There are no "constitutional" rights at all, little fuckwit sophomore
joshie.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-01 17:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
The woman is exercising her constitutional right to personal
association. There is no constitutional right to business association.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,..."

A warrant is needed to search a business.

A business is a person.... It has rights.

A business has free speech.

A business can refuse to buy from another business.

A business pays a tax... and has rights to property.
--
That's Karma
Alex W.
2017-01-01 22:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,..."
A warrant is needed to search a business.
A business is a person.... It has rights.
A business has free speech.
A business can refuse to buy from another business.
A business pays a tax... and has rights to property.
Can a business be called up for military service or do they have the
right to own weaponry? Does a corporation have the right to vote, or to
be elected? Can Acme Inc be called for jury duty?

A business is not a natural person.
It is a legal person.

Being humans and hence natural persons, we acquire our rights by virtue
of birth.

Conversely, any rights and obligations acquired by a corporation are
acquired only at the point of incorporation under the laws of the state
or nation where it is incorporated. They are not automatic rights, they
are not human rights or civil liberties. They are simply and only what
the relevant laws of incorporation grant them.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-01 22:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,..."
A warrant is needed to search a business.
A business is a person.... It has rights.
A business has free speech.
A business can refuse to buy from another business.
A business pays a tax... and has rights to property.
Can a business be called up for military service or do they have the
right to own weaponry? Does a corporation have the right to vote, or to
be elected? Can Acme Inc be called for jury duty?
A business is not a natural person.
It is a legal person.
Being humans and hence natural persons, we acquire our rights by virtue
of birth.
Conversely, any rights and obligations acquired by a corporation are
acquired only at the point of incorporation under the laws of the state
or nation where it is incorporated. They are not automatic rights, they
are not human rights or civil liberties. They are simply and only what
the relevant laws of incorporation grant them.
Given Citizens United, in which SCOTUS held corporations have the same
Freedom of Speech rights as natural persons, that's not always true.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-01 15:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:54:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
There *is* hypocrisy. The left *supports* one basis of discrimination,
while opposing the other, when there is no valid ethical reason for the
difference in support.
The right and center supports the same alleged hypocrisy
Not the way the left does, and they haven't manipulated the courts into
writing *their* hypocrisy into law.
How has the left manipulated the courts into writing anti-discrimination
laws (all of which are passed by legislatures)?
You didn't comment on the part you snipped: there is a broad consensus
in this country that there is a difference between discriminating
against someone because of who they are versus what they believe.
And yet there's no difference if a woman refuses to have sex
with someone of a different race as it is her body, her choice. So
there's a contradiction which needs to be resolved.
Obama and Liberals intend to use political correctness to force that
woman to have sex with anyone, just as they now force that woman who
owns a business to sell to anyone. They are both very personal choices
that the Liberals feel government can make for that woman better than
she can make for herself.

If the woman has a discriminating taste she can be sent to a
re-education camp called "sensitivity training".

A place where they break down a person and rebuild them to the image
that the liberals are more comfortable with.
--
That's Karma
Don Kresch
2016-12-31 21:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:24:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by First-Post
The hypocrisy of the left is demonstrated perfectly at Café 8 ½ in
Honolulu.
http://www.eater.com/2016/12/28/14099564/hawaii-restaurant-bans-trump-voters
The left believes that the restaurant is completely within it's rights
since it is trying to prohibit those they hate for their political
beliefs from being served there as is evidenced in some of the reader
comments.
For the umpteenth time, there is no hypocrisy because the law permits
businesses that serve the general public to discriminate on the basis of
political beliefs (conservative or liberal), but not on the basis of
race, religion etc. (applying to religious, secular, liberal and
conservative owners alike).
Why shouldn't they be able to?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2016-12-30 20:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are
legally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of
their faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing
liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which
advance positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted
(the proscription applies whether it is based in religious and
secular beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise
permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't
refuse a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then
they are doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay
wedding cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the
religion is burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for
them and likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and
militant the gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian
weddings and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
Ahem. You mean like Obamacare where I have to contribute to plans that are
not in my best interest to satisfy a government deman. Or doctors being
told who they may serve and how much they may charge?

Liberal hypocrisy at it's best.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.


This also goes for Ed Asner who wants the actors to NOT be subjected
equally to a $15/hr minimum wage. He thinks it will cause the small
theater houses to close down. Well that's exactly what I said it would
do to small businesses in rural and low population density areas.

A McBurger place that is in a small rural town doesn't have the foot
traffic to support minimum wages of $15/hr. And a new start up business
may not be able to open with that burden.

That creates zombie shops on main street where they are only open a few
hours a day or they go out of business.

[""""""The suit, whose lead plaintiff was former SAG President Ed Asner,
argued that forcing small companies to pay minimum wage will put many of
them out of business, thus reducing opportunities for local actors.
Actors currently make as little as $7 a day at some small venues.
Beginning January 1, the minimum wage in California will be $10.50 an
hour."""""""]
http://deadline.com/2016/12/los-angeles-theater-minimum-wage-lawsuit-dismissed-ed-asner-actors-equity-1201867216/


Liberals just don't get that they aren't the center of the universe and
that others are going to be hurt by their legislation like their hate
crimes and gay wedding cakes and minimum wage but they only see that
when it's applied EQUALLY. Meaning that it is also applied to
themselves. The Singers and actors are some of the most narcissistic
people there are and they have no idea how anything effects the rest of
us but when it's applied to themselves they whine like little children.
--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
Do the people who play at an Inaugural get paid anything other than
expenses? I would think that, normally, they do it gratis, for the
publicity. If so, non-discrimination law would not apply.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 18:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to
perform at a presidential inauguration because you
have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a
wedding >>cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >>opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not
performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one
should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their
belief >>system. >> They have no problems with Christians
driving people out >>of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel
because it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are
legally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the
tenants of their faith as a condition of being in business, while
allowing liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions
which advance positions counter to theirs.
No one is "requiring" Christians to
violate their tenets. They can obey their
tenets or obey the law. No one is forcing
them to operate a store.
Is it your position that "religious
merchants" don't have to obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks claim any "religious
right" to violate the law?
Just those inalienable RIGHTS given to her by her creator and recognized
and protected by the constitution.

SO you could say she was claiming her God given rights as a human life
were being violated.... I don't remember exactly how "she" phrased it
when they took her to jail.

The State was requiring her to violate the constitution by requiring her
to accept a place as a second class citizen, just as a person that
decides to own a store is told by state laws again that they are a
second class citizen. The State is saying that the State has the power
to tell the store owner where to sit or what cakes they must bake.

Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone is
being forced to become a second class citizen. If the city government
bus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second class
citizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that crates
a second class citizen?
--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2016-12-30 20:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone is
being forced to become a second class citizen. If the city government
bus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second class
citizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that crates
a second class citizen?
The Montgomery bus line was privately owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

It was forced to segregate by state and local law.
If they had been operating interstate, they wuld have been
subject to this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keys_v._Carolina_Coach_Co.

IOW, it was ILLEGAL, prior to the changes in court decisions that
were overturning PLESS v FERGUSON, for merchants in Jim Crow states
to try to run businesses that did NO discriminate, even if they
had wanted to.

Of course, that's not to say many of those owners didn't support Jim Crow.
It's easier to say, "my hands are tied, that's the law," than have to
make a moral choice and risk alienating bigots with money.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2016-12-30 20:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
were overturning PLESS v FERGUSON, for merchants in Jim Crow states
Plessy. Didn't hit the "y" hard enough.

Kevin R
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 21:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 16:12:26 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
The freedom of religion protected in the Constitution does not include
disobeying a generally-applicable law.
Laws that interfere with religious exercise are NOT generally applicable
laws they are unconstitutional laws.
So according to Rosenbluth the mayors and city officials of all of
those sanctuary cities should be arrested and charged with the
violation of U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part
VIII › § 1324 which states that it is a violation of law for any
person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection
No, idiot, because no so-called "sanctuary" city is doing that.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 22:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The freedom of religion protected in the Constitution does not
include
disobeying a generally-applicable law.
Laws that interfere with religious exercise are NOT generally
applicable
laws they are unconstitutional laws.
Josh has issues with that concept.
The idiot fuckwit Beamer's statement is *false*. They are *not*
unconstitutional laws. They're bad laws, because they violate
legitimate natural rights, but they are constitutional.
I am sorry you have such a problem with religion, but the simple fact is
that Religious exercise is protected by the Constitution, and you do not
get to define what that is.
I'm sorry, but I *do* get to define what it is, and it is *not* getting
to exempt yourself from generally applicable laws.

As I have said before, there is no commandment in anyone's religion
forbidding him from baking a cake for people who are going to use it to
celebrate something of which the baker disapproves. "Free exercise"
simply cannot be stretched that far.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-31 02:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The freedom of religion protected in the Constitution does not
include
disobeying a generally-applicable law.
Laws that interfere with religious exercise are NOT generally
applicable
laws they are unconstitutional laws.
Josh has issues with that concept.
The idiot fuckwit Beamer's statement is *false*. They are *not*
unconstitutional laws. They're bad laws, because they violate
legitimate natural rights, but they are constitutional.
I thought you felt they are unconstitutional because they violate
freedom of contract and association.
I never said or suggested they are unconstitutional.
But given the post above, why doyou think they are constitutional?
Because in our legal system and tradition, constitutionality is whatever
judges say it is. That doesn't mean it's well reasoned, nor does it
mean it's good law.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-01 18:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:33:58 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
Of course they do. Every time they have a concert, they are serving
the general public.
Bullshit. No comparison. The performer is essentially an employee of
the event promoter.
No, the performer is the employee of the ticket holders.
Wrong. The promoter is the business owner and acts as an intermediary
between the performer and the concertgoers. It is the promote who sells
the tickets, not the performer.
Without the performer, the tickets are meaningless.
So? The performer is still the promoter's (temporary) employee. It's
the promoter who organizes and manages the event. Sometimes, the
performer is unavailable and a substitute is hired. That's obviously
not possible with a superstar, who has no substitute, but the point is
it is the promoter with whom the public transacts business, not the
performer.

You really are stupid, little fuckwit sophomore joshie - magnificently
stupid - and it's made that much more magnificent by your arrogant
belief in your sub-par intellect. There are few people posting here who
suffer from Dunning-Kruger as badly as you do.
Loading...