#RabidPuppies INFOGALACTIC #GamerGate
- Blog Archives -
posted by VD @ 4/01/2015 11:30:00 AM
The SJWs are focusing their attack on the RFRA now because it was in large part behind the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which of course they lost. Here's the breakdown in opinion of the public.Public Split on Requiring Wedding-Related Businesses to Provide Services for Same-Sex Weddings Even the RCC laity is for the restriction of religious liberty.
"We'll bring him back if he wants to be courteous." ...while MSNBC exercises its right as a corporate person...
How anyone conflated "freedom of association" with "government-coerced association" escapes me.If the Bill of Rights recognizes my innate right to freely associate as my conscience dictates, how then can I be FORCED to associate as an individual in private or while engaged in commerce?Orwell was right about corrupting the language.
ya it's starting to get scary now with thease people.
Individualists have a friend in Jesus ... NOT:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thank-god-the-pope-is-an-anticapitalism-socialist-2013-12-11"Yes, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Paul Ryan are right: Conservatives should be very worried about the pope’s radical message. Read his “Apostolic Exhortation,” his mandate to change the world. Read the original. We did — all 66 pages. Read and discover for yourself 10 things about this pope you don’t know. Even before the pope’s manifesto was posted, a New York Times headline read “Conservative U.S. Catholics feel left out of pope’s embrace.” Now they must want him impeached. But read his words. See for yourself what the 76-year-old pontiff is actually thinking, his core principles, convictions, mission, mandate. His words are clear and unequivocal. See why Francis is the most radical pope in centuries. He knows a revolution is coming. And know he’s the leader — in fact on Wednesday he was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year.”Read his words. I read them with the cold eyes of my earlier days practicing law, reviewing SEC documents at Morgan Stanley, as a hard-nosed Marine sergeant serving Mass for Catholic chaplains. Yes, conservative commentators are right. Conservatives everywhere — from the GOP, Wall Street bankers, Big Ag and every climate denier, to union-busing politicians, Big Oil billionaires and traditional growth economists — every conservative should be concerned about this gentle pontiff’s deceptively disarming charm, his happy smile. He says he has no “political ideology.” He’s that good a diplomat. Yet his own words clearly brand him an anticapitalist, a socialist and a leader with a revolutionary mission. Thank God, because the world needs him."
For Pete's sake. Wikipedia says that corporations have been recognized as legal persons in the US since 1819. Get with the program, moron.
Ed Schultz can't get the concept of juridical person, or legal corporate person, through his thick skull, and promptly runs away from the very answer he demanded.I think he understands it. He just wants it applied selectively. Anderson was too prepared for the ambush and Schultz panicked, slandered the governor, and cut the mic when he was called out for it.
Owen - I think he understands it.No way. At 0:22 he explicitly says "That's not true because it [federal law] does not have the definition of 'person' connected to a corporation, would you agree?"
Wikipedia says that corporations have been recognized as legal persons in the US since 1819. Get with the program, moron.It's such a fundamental concept that those who say it shouldn't be are either morons or deliberately evasive.The US, like every nation, grants "personhood" to entities, such as corporations (if incorporated in the US), to protect them in, among other places, international settings.22 CFR 120.15Anyone who is involved in trade or business deals, especially international, knows this and knows it has been that way for as long as anyone remembers.
No way. At 0:22 he explicitly says "That's not true because it [federal law] does not have the definition of 'person' connected to a corporation, would you agree?"I suppose. I still don't buy that he could be so badly prepped, before he was to host a discussion.I may underestimate the stupidity of others.It is interesting, given how Vox laid out how different types react to counter-arguments, to watch and tick off the attributes.
resturaunt owners can kick anyone out of their business for any reason any time.period.
Restaurant owners can also be sued for alleged discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. Another legal monstrosity that never should have been passed.
Owen - I suppose. I still don't buy that he could be so badly prepped, before he was to host a discussion.It's hard to swallow, I know, but he looks sincere when he asks that question and honestly surprised when Anderson tells him that federal law does define corporations as persons. Also, if he knew how blatantly and embarrassingly wrong it was, why would he say it?
Corporations are creatures of the State. They are owned by individual persons. And according to the Federal Government, individual persons are slaves. So what's the issue here? You slaves think you have rights to be homophobes or something?
Also, if he knew how blatantly and embarrassingly wrong it was, why would he say it? Well, first let me say that I think my initial call was wrong and I've come around to believe he didn't know basic business.Supposing he did, why would he say it? Because he has built into his mind that he's super smart and the Right is full of dummies. So, he can pull a fast one, get a bunch of folks to agree with him, and assume the token Right guy didn't prepare.
I see Nate and raise.Anyone, individual person or business, can refuse service to anyone else at any time, for any reason (or for no damned reason at all).
Equating Corporate Personhood, being creatures of the State, with the Living, Breathing Soul and flipping it that definitionally the latter is required to act as the former is truely Orwellian. It is also telling of one's status with government. Many, being called tin foil hatters, have noticed that on official Government forms, etc, where you, the Living, Breathing Soul, write your name in Upper and lower case the government uses all UPPER, like that which is seen on grave stones; dead entities. Your name is written as that of a Corpoartion; other than a living breathing soul. SEARS. APPLE. On a government form I was required to both print and sign my name. I did both in Upper/lower cases. What I got back was in all UPPER. Why? I asked the clerk that question, and this was before computers / printers. She said it was easier. Really? Then why did you fill in that field, the one for restrictions, None - using lower case? "We're told to do that," she said. She didn't like what I told her.
"How anyone conflated 'freedom of association' with 'government-coerced association' escapes me."It happened when "toleration" became "celebration."When "The love that dare not speak its name" became "The love that can't shut the fuck up."
> Anyone, individual person or business, can refuse service to anyone else at any time, for any reason (or for no damned reason at all).Yep. That was the original concept. Now, anyone with any sense knows it's a bad idea to do so on a regular basis and without good reason. A business which does so would soon find itself with a very limited customer base. But that doesn't change the idea.
"A business which does so would soon find itself with a very limited customer base."That's a feature of the free market, not a bug. It's more self-correcting than science.
"Even the RCC laity is for the restriction of religious liberty."It is still pretty close to an even split for white Catholics. And Catholics tend to get more politically conservative the more active they are in sacramental and parish life. So I am not sure this can be generalized to what might be called orthodox Catholics. Listen to EWTN concerning this subject. They are almost universally on the conservative side of this debate. There is a lot of chafe among the wheat but there is wheat.
On the SteynOnline site today.What if you are an atheist who really objects to gay marriage? Must you still bake cakes for gay weddings, or will pro-shariah Muslim bakers be the only ones who can walk into court and ask to be excused from doing so..?Do we respect a gay baker's right to choose not to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with icing that reads God Hates Fags?Do we respect a fundamentalist Muslim baker's choice not to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah because she really is not crazy about the Star of David?
Steyn's comments fron this article (credit where due).http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416257/freedom-association-burned-stake-indiana-deroy-murdock
darkdoc,You can leave Muslim examples out. No one on the opposition side will ever address those questions directly. Ever. Though they have no shame in doublethink, mind you, but they are not about to go on record as opposing freedom of conscience for Mohametans...too afraid of that group.
Not to worry. More people saw that clip here than actually on the broadcast. Eddie has what, 64 viewers?
Not sure why leftoids are so determined not to understand the difference between natural and legal persons, or why the concept of legal personhood exists and applies to businesses.It's not a fricking conspiracy. It's to make it possible for "the business" to enter into contracts, own assets, and be sued if it fails to meet its legal obligations.This is a good thing because, while the individuals who collectively comprise, say, Apple Computers, will change over time, the legal person that is Apple Computers remains "alive". Which is handy if you are doing any kind of business with Apple - buying a computer from them and knowing that your warranty will still be valid even if Tim Cook gets hit by a bus, for example.Anyway, were American "news" talking heads always braying idiots, or is this a recent phenomenon? The fat guy in that clip would be kicked out of any high school debate team.
"...were American "news" talking heads always braying idiots...?"Probably a rhetorical question, but the answer is "yes".
WinstonWebb - Thanks. It wasn't rhetorical.In Britain, journalists are almost exclusively sneering leftwingers, but they'll rarely flat-out bluster and bully their guests the way that fat man did.Media bias is more subtle in England. They'd smirk and spock an eyebrow and ask leading questions, but I've never seen one refuse to let a guest answer a question, then cut off his microphone.
OT but maybe I can be forgiver...Over at Market Ticker brother Karl is calling it a day. The site goes dark after today.I don't know if this is an April fools joke...sounds serious...if so RIP its been good to read.
Steve - Media bias is more subtle in England.Really? I visited there some years ago and was struck by how blatant the bias was in the newspapers. I mean huge, half-page headlines screaming emotional anti-WOT messages (this was during OIF). Not even a pretense of objectivity. I even brought one back with me to show my friends.
Many restaurants allow dog owners to dine with their pets out on patios. If a dog owner wishes to have a wedding reception at the restaurant for he and his dog, then the restaurant ought to be able to decline such a request. Why is this so difficult?No one is saying homosexuals cannot dine together. Requiring that a business sanction their union via wedding related, insurance/benefits related is not the same thing.
You know, making businesses cater to certain minority groups (or any group for that matter) is a clear violation of the 13th amendment.Just call them pro-slavery.
> That's a feature of the free market, not a bug. It's more self-correcting than science.Oh, I agree completely. I was merely noting that actions do have consequences, even absent government regulations. That doesn't mean that those actions should be illegal.
Cowardliness and ignorance? Well, yeah on the surface it looks that way. That is for these "cutouts." That's their job. That's what they get paid for. To essentially look stupid on camera. Because most people watching them, can only comprehend that Gatorade is good for growing crops.Now for thinking people, they are beginning to understand, that the Magic Negro, may well have a bit more magic under his sleeve than most wish to give him credit:President Obama Has Been Listening to Some New Advisers and Following Their America-First Advice Oh, and April Fools!
Krul - I should've said on TV and radio. Newspapers are, as you say, not subtle in this country.
The shoeless and shirtless... Rejoice! And bring dice.
Steve - I should've said on TV and radio.No, you were right it was implied. I just got a skewed perspective because I only saw the newspapers over there; never watched tv. I assumed what was true for the papers was true for the networks.
The problem with GOP and conservatives and right-wing Americans in general is that they can see the problem. The problem with all of this is... the Civil Rights act. Everyone knows it. No one says it.It all starts with free association. Free association.
Look, you either want to engage in commerce or business affecting a public interest, or you don't. If you do, you get a license from the government, which is in actuality an adhesion contract, and you abide by its terms, which the government gets to write. Or you don't get a license and you operate outside of commerce. If you're going to take that route, be very careful not to accidentally engage in commerce, like advertising for example, or you will be shut down. You can't both be open to the public AND be a private business. It's impossible by definition. If you're open to the public, you must conduct commerce in the manner the governing body determines. That's what you agree to when you sign that business license or corporate charter. Whining about it now, after you've already reaped the benefits, is childish. You signed the contract; now you adhere to the terms. It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't engage in commerce, then.
Media bias is more subtle in England. They'd smirk and spock an eyebrow and ask leading questions, but I've never seen one refuse to let a guest answer a question, then cut off his microphone.To be fair, I've rarely if ever seen anything that blatant here in America either.
This battle was lost decades ago.
Well you have to admit the Right didn't want to listen when Billy Clinton pulled out a dictionary to prove what the meaning of IS IS, or when Bath House Barry tried to define what the IS in ISIS means, or Hillary not knowing what Internet Server should be used for official business. The law is already passed in 14 states. If I have my hand down a guys pants at a restaurant, while OK in gay restaurants, if Owner's wants to kick us out before we get the bill its their right. I have actually seen gays kiss and try to make a scene that where trying to skip out on the bill. The wedding cake suing couples are like black women who fall in jewelry stores. You see those 2 guys together where the one is berating the waiter for something not in his control they are gay and not getting kicked out."I may underestimate the stupidity of others".Ready for Hillary to learn how to manage 2 email accounts before she gets any real responsibility."Media bias is more subtle in England."Yea when they finally got around to covering cops & social workers ignoring 3rd world moslems gang rapping little white girls, which they denounced as islamophopia before, the very first thing they asked was how to stoop this from causing islamophopia, instead of saying well I guess we should call islamophopia islamorealism. Or all the coverage of the woman arrested for saying words on the tram vs. little coverage of black pack attack on WWII veteran that blinds him getting sentenced to community service. The arrest of Nick Griffon for the hate crime of saying moslems rape little white girls was joyously reported, but any apologies for him being right are not forthcoming.
From gaypatiot. The Power of the Press Posted by V the K at 5:51 pm - March 31, 2015. Filed under: Shiny Objects & Squirrels Isn’t it interesting how the ginned-up outrage over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law has completely driven coverage of Hillary’s email scandal and Obama’s “Neville Chamberlain Goes to Teheran” Act out of the news?
Does anybody know if news organizations have some kind of IQ cap for its journalists similar to what the police departments have?
So by this argument if I'm a doctor I should be required to commit euthanasia even if I'm religiously and morally opposed if the state all of a sudden declares that euthanasia is a moral good: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/04/cowardice-ignorance-media.html#c1352735296446104439
The problem with GOP and conservatives and right-wing Americans in general is that they can see the problem. The problem with all of this is... the Civil Rights act. Everyone knows it. No one says it.It all starts with free association. Free association.I agree. The Republican establishment will never show the spine to fight over the principle because any fight over free association logically ends in a fight over the Civil Rights Act. If the Republicans had balls, they would be tarring the left by saying the left is the ideological successor to Jim Crow. Rand Paul is the only one I can think of that has shown the courage to even mention the issue and he will shut up due to his presidential candidacy.
Does anybody know if news organizations have some kind of IQ cap for its journalists similar to what the police departments have?That's something I never considered, but given how dopey some of them are (Gunga Dan, Brian Williams, Katie Couric), they may like the dumb, controllable monkeys.Zoolander works the news desk.
It happened when "toleration" became "celebration."As I see it, "tolerance" became "thou must promote [fill in the blank.]"p-dawg, your definition of commerce is phenomenally statist (yes, fashionable, but statist.) This is the same conception of commerce that allowed FDR's Brain Trust to order pigs to be slaughtered in order to drive up the price of pork to "fight" the low prices of the Great Depression's money supply collapse deflation.Farmer were ordered to destroy crops and livestock intended for THEIR OWN USE simply because by producing for themselves they were not entering the market to purchase. All covered under the infinitely wide "commerce clause."Once again, Orwell for the win.
You know, an additional benefit of barring Congressman from becoming Presidents is that it would stop (or at least reduce) that sort of squirreling away of one's platform. If Congress as a co-equal government branch was a de jure political peak, ambitious Congressman would have no compulsion to sacrifice the actual constituency for the one they really wanted.
"I see Nate and raise.Anyone, individual person or business, can refuse service to anyone else at any time, for any reason (or for no damned reason at all)."Certainly not true in California. My friend the restaurant owner wanted to ban kids who came in half-dressed. His lawyer told him he'd face liability under the Unruh Act.
Zoolander works the news desk.Wrong. Zoolander could only make right turns. The news desk always takes the left turn.
"You can't both be open to the public AND be a private business."That's a remarkably stupid statement, p-dawg, even in light of the boot-licking sentiment of your post.Take your pick of any dictionary on the internet. I challenge you to provide a link to a definition of "private business" that fits your ass-backward concept of same.
P-dawg: I own my own incorporated business, and I guarantee you that I will never provide my services to any prospective customer for the purposes of celebrating any farcical homosexual "wedding". There is no force on earth, not even your precious Federal Entity, that could compel me to do so. My business is just that: mine. I and I alone will decide with whom I will contract, and there is nothing that you or any of you ass-pirates can do about it. I win, you lose, game over.
"It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't engage in commerce, then. "The same offer was made to the Kulaks.... Worked itself out in the end.
P-dawg,Why is it that:Don't like abortions? Don't get one.Don't like gay marriage? Don't run a business.Don't like income tax? Don't have a job.Are acceptable arguments, but:Don't like my religious views? Don't buy from me.Don't like guns? Don't buy a gun.Don't like Arizona's illegal alien policy? Don't move to Arizona.Are not?
Why does Ed Schultz want to suck his boyfriend off in someone else's restaurant?That's what I got from that "interview".Rhethoric with rhethoric.
"It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't engage in commerce, then. "Revelation:13:17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
How anyone conflated "freedom of association" with "government-coerced association" escapes me.Easy. You're a photographer, and two homosexuals want to associate with you by having you photograph their "wedding." If you refuse, you're restricting their freedom of association.Yeah, it's stupid. But to riff on what DH said, once you decide that affirmative rights (the right to do X) trump negative rights (the right not to do X), the rest follows logically. All that's left is to keep track of who/whom so you know who wins each match-up.
has completely driven coverage of Hillary’s email scandalThat's the very purpose of 24 hour "news" and media in general.Re-direct, whitewash and misinform.
"...the Unruh Act."The irony writes itself. With a little help from liberals.
Easy. You're a photographer, and two homosexuals want to associate with you by having you photograph their "wedding." If you refuse, you're restricting their freedom of association.Unless the photographer is a Muslim. In that case 2+2 = universe explodes.
"Unless the photographer is a Muslim."In which case the rabbits ignore the entire event and hope it goes away because cowards.
"Why does Ed Schultz want to suck his boyfriend off in someone else's restaurant?"I explained this, they will ask him to leave before they tabulate the bill. See if you do it after you eat the steak but before desert they forget to ask you to pay.
It looks like Indiana, it's businesses, it's economy and its citizens are beginning to learn there are consequences to promoting bigotry. Good!
Schultz's performance was pure gamma.
"SavedApril 01, 2015 4:35 PMIt looks like Indiana, it's businesses, it's economy and its citizens are beginning to learn there are consequences to promoting bigotry. Good!"Please cite the paragraph in the Indiana RFRA that promotes bigotry or retract your statement.Thank you,
...What was it Pericles said about the Megarian decree, "Do not think you go to war over so small a thing, for in denying them you prove the very seal of your determination."
It looks like Indiana, it's businesses, it's economy and its citizens are beginning to learn there are consequences to promoting bigotry. Gooo!"Never said it did textually promote it. But when it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot and squawks like a bigot...
Indiana is full of bigots!
"Never said it did textually promote it. But when it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot and squawks like a bigot..."I didn't ask you to move the goalposts, but since you've now altered your position, please cite the paragraph in the Indiana RFRA that "walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot and squawks like a bigot..." or retract your statement.Thank you,
"Indiana is full of bigots!"This has always been clear.
Muslims in Indiana are bigots.
"I didn't ask you to move the goalposts,"Precisely who they were not moved.The RFRA was designed specifically to give bigots cover for bigoted and discriminatory actions that are allegedly motivated by religion.And now Indiana gets to feel the sharp steely consequences of pandering to bigots.
I hate Muslims in Indiana... All are bigots.
"The RFRA was designed specifically to give bigots cover for bigoted and discriminatory actions that are allegedly motivated by religion."Yet you can cite exactly -0- lines of the law in question that has anything to do with bigotry or the promotion thereof.Your opinion has neither credibility nor validity.
"Yet you can cite exactly -0- lines of the law in question that has anything to do with bigotry or the promotion thereof.Your opinion has neither credibility nor validity."Good lord, whatever will I do? A bigot attemps Disquslify! Not only is my position valid, it's the only possible explanation. We win, you and Indiana lose!
@Alexander wrote that "Don't like gay marriage? Don't run a business." is an "acceptable argument."No, it is not.
@WinstonWebb. You wrote, "That's a remarkably stupid statement, p-dawg, even in light of the boot-licking sentiment of your post.Take your pick of any dictionary on the internet. I challenge you to provide a link to a definition of "private business" that fits your ass-backward concept of same.He won't, of course, because he can't.
Saved: I am a "bigot". So what?
Just you wait until Christianity is relegated to the dust bin of history Amerika. And you lib-tards get a taste of the Muslim caliphate that will replace it.Just you wait for the gnashing of the teeth and the wailing as they chop your progressive lib-tard heads off. Nature abhors a vacuum and once Christianity has been outlawed you fools are going to get and get good.
Unless the photographer is a Muslim.That would never happen. The goal of the gay couple is to creep out and cause trouble for white Christian squares (proxies for their dads), not to offend useful fellow designated victim groups. They'd never approach the Muslim photographer in the first place.
"Saved April 01, 2015 5:28 PMGood lord, whatever will I do? A bigot attemps Disquslify!"Doing such would be completely unnecessary as you are doing a fine job of discrediting yourself."Not only is my position valid, it's the only possible explanation. We win, you and Indiana lose!"validadjective val·id \ˈva-ləd\: fair or reasonable: acceptable according to the lawYour position has nothing valid about it at all as it has no substance. You claim that the Indiana RFRA promotes bigotry, yet cannot provide any logical progression from one to the other. Your opinion is neutered hysterics.
"Just you wait until Christianity is relegated to the dust bin of history Amerika. And you lib-tards get a taste of the Muslim caliphate that will replace it."Oh Puuuuleeeeze!!!"the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming...." Is this really your fear? That Christianity will be outlawed? When? By whom? How? Under what circumstances. Christianity being banned has as much chance of happening as the muslims coming to take us over.The only people who are "getting it good" (as you say) now are the idiots in Indiana who think its a good idea to give cover to bigots. But yeah....watch out for those muslims!!
Saved: Speak up, boy. I can't hear you. I'm one of those "bigots" you hate. I will never associate my business with any farcical homosexual "marriage".So what are you going to do about it?
The only bigotry that matters is homophobia.Muslims love gays. I know many Muslims who love me and I am gay.
I'm a homophobe, Saved. You got a problem with that?
"The only bigotry that matters is homophobia."Being a bigot on bigotry.
Someone here is impersonating me. The only "niggers" that I see are bigot Vox Day and the hateful idiots in Indiana.
"So what are you going to do about it?"Well, as people see how Indiana is being treated for its Cover-the-Bigots-Ass law, there will be more and more people who think twice about letting their bigotry off its leash. That's a good thing. In the mean time, more and more of your type will die off to be replaced by responsible, thinking folks who shake their heads in wonder that there were once your type.So, what am I going to do about? Wrong question. The right question is Indiana going to do about it? Put simply: As we continue to point to the bigotry and reject it, it's only a matter of time.
"Cut his mic off... we'll bring him back if he want's to be courteous."That, coming from Schultz, is the sound-bite definition of irony.
The right question is how to lock up you bigots until you die off. Unfortunately your kind breeds like rabbits. Forced abortions might work.
"the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming...." They are already here & killing gays as gaysteve has provided citation. That's why the left doesn't want to make them mad by reporting on it. The reason there have been no more WACOs is because Tim McVeigh scared the left. All it took was an open letter posted by Mike Vanderboegh saying there will be no more FREE WACOS to make Eric "race card" Holder wet himself and pull out his troops out of Bundy's ranch within 4 hours.I believe it was Vox that said “If you are a K, fighting to protect your own is just what you do, and death comes with time to all. Rabbits are different. Invade their house, and they will capitulate. Grab their wife to beat, rape, and kill her, and they will cower in corner obediently, hopeful you will confine your assault and murder solely to their spouse and children”15 States have this legislation and AK is about to get it why all the crying about it now? What about a gay surcharge to put up with mistreatment of staff and double the price for the cake due to needing 2 wives on it?
If hating people in Indiana is a sin, I don't want to go to heaven. Rational right-thinking folks know it is only a matter of time until you bigots step-and-fetch-it. Shibes, bark like a dog for me, bigot.
Anbuis, you are a bigot and my bitch. Bark like a dog for me.
The gaysteve also told us your weakness. I am wearing boots you may lick them for $200. I am currently staying at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC so stop on by.
Ha it worked he is probably heading to DC as we speak.
Funny, I didn't think there was a bigger blow-hard than Sean Hannity... I stand corrected.
Saved April 01, 2015 6:36 PM The only bigotry that matters is homophobia.People should be allowed to live in peace. They should not be forced to live a life they don't want to live to make other people happy. If you're gay and over the age of 9 you must understand that. Same thing applies with Christians. This law and others like it protects everyone to live the life they want to in peace. I'm shocked that you can't see that. Or do you think it makes more sense that the NAACP should be forced to rent out their banquet hall to white supremacists? You clearly don't understand anything about your freedoms, or others.
"When "The love that dare not speak its name" became "The love that can't shut the fuck up."Amen. Now if someone could get little gay Saved to STFU. But he does have a point; I live in Indiana and it's full of bigots, and if you want to find them just go to your closest union shop. Can't swing a dead cat with out hitting a bigot.
Again, Augusto Pinochet knew how to handle these Leftists.
Getting the concept or not isn't the point with the Schultz's of the world. Some people merely wish to tear down, and all means, honest and dishonest, will suffice in their pursuit of their ends.The conservative handled himself unbelievably well except for one thing: he thought the conversation was one about definitional aspects of the law. When I was young I didn't understand why C.S. Lewis concluded Perelandra with the hero having to simply fight the Devil with physical violence - no intellectual debate for the purposes of achieving a peaceful 'resolution'. I understand it much better now...
Government has been overreaching for far too long in private lives and enterprises, especially when it comes to dictating morality. Anyone with a sense of cultural history can observe how progressives have used the state to advance its agenda via bullying and intimidation.Separation of church and state doesn't only mean religion should be kept out of government policy. It also means government should keep out of private lives and enterprise.A massive overhaul of government policy/reach is overdue.
Now that the Indiana pizza joint has had to shut down due to death threats, the gay rights movement is now no different than gamergate. Anyone associated with gay rights who doesn't immediately repudiate it is far beyond the pale."it's about gay discrimination in the food service industry.""no, it's about anti-christian terrorism"
@ Saved Rational right-thinking folks know it is only a matter of time until you bigots step-and-fetch-it.Folks?Barak Hussein, is that you?
Guys. If you think a commenter might be Tad, stop responding to him. The "shut up, Tad" shtick is nearly as annoying as Tad himself.Ignore the trolls. They'll get spammed, and your witty replies will get deleted.
What I am still trying to wrap my head around is this: why would you want someone who you think doesn't like you handle your food/wedding plans? If you really think they're hateful, evil monsters, wouldn't you want them to be as far away from you as possible? Why go through the effort of having the government force them to do this instead of just going to another baker? Why risk them spitting in your cake or doing something nefarious to the flowers?
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229977Denninger has a very good response.
> A massive overhaul of government policy/reach is overdue.A good 150 years at least.> Why go through the effort of having the government force them to do this instead of just going to another baker?Because the goal is to put them out of business. Christians beliefs will not be tolerated in the public arena. They'll start at the state levels and work their way up. Then all they need is for the supreme's to creatively reinterpret that troublesome first amendment, and they're all set.
Saved: My real name is not difficult to ascertain. Find it. Look up my business. Then you bring on your little Red Guards and give me your best shot. #boycottshibesmeadow and be damned. You've got nothing and I'm not afraid of you. Unlike the cowards who cave in to your witch hunts, I'll stand and fight you -- and I'll win. You literally cannot harm me. And I'll tell you another thing: even if everybody else in the world gives in on this, I will not. Shibes Meadow vs. the Universe -- now that's a fair fight.I'm laughing at you right now, You are so sure of yourself. You are so certain that nobody will resist. Well, you've now met the Immovable Object: me. So you bring it on, cowboy. I'm not going anywhere.
When abortions became legal, doctors and nurses were ( and still are) exempt from participating if it violates their beliefs.Why would any decent human being FORCE somone to provide services against their wishes?
Death threats are market forces according to a journalist:http://twitchy.com/2015/04/01/mobs-arent-markets-you-wont-believe-this-journos-take-on-why-memoriespizza-closed-down/This is so totes more important than Hilldog's emails or the Middle East.
When I saw p-dawg's lame interpretation of the meaning of commerce I got all bothered and was thinking I needed to craft a stern correction.But there are too many other smart people here who did the job with great alacrity and extreme prejudice. So, thanks for that. Blood pressure dropping back to normal levels now...
"Cut his mike off," they explained.
Ed Schultz did get his ass handed to him. Noah B. knows all about that feeling. Ah, memories.“federal law does define corporations as persons.”For SOME purposes. But since corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it is up to Congress and the courts to determine what rights corporations have—and which corporations have them. Recall that corporations were not given ANY constitutional right of political speech; rather, they were granted economic free rights by way of government charter. For a cogent analysis...http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/05/fly-flag-on-loyalty-day.html“resturaunt owners can kick anyone out of their business for any reason any time. period.”“Restaurant owners can also be sued for alleged discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. Another legal monstrosity that never should have been passed.”Southrons, not unless the restaurant wants to remain in business. Companies are artificial entities that receive a charter from the government, per the founding fathers. In this manner, businesses are subject to federal and state laws. Period. P-Dawg is spot on with their assessment.
"P-Dawg is spot on with their assessment."I.e. go ahead and fucking starve, kulaks.
God bless Ryan T. Anderson. He doesn't realize yet the best outcome of all this is if the totalitarian sodomites let us form our own country with our own law respecting moral truth and justice.
" the best outcome of all this is if the totalitarian sodomites let us form our own country with our own law respecting moral truth and justice."They would prefer to murder us en masse before allowing such an outcome.
Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.
Success comes most swiftly and completely not to the greatest or
perhaps even to the ablest men, but to those whose gifts are most
completely in harmony with the taste of their times.