*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

I don't need to argue against the points you're making. You'er doing a fine job burying yourself. I'm just calling out the contradiction in your points and asking you to explain it.

How is a custom painting desecrating muhammed different than a custom cake celebrating gay marriage?

How are you making a distinction unless you're drawing some arbitrary line between the two defining the borderline between what is offensive and what isn't.

And if that's what you're doing, what gives you the right?

What gives the government the right?

[Mr.Banana]

You just spin them into something you want to argue with and argue with that, instead.

Exactly which sentence did I spin?

[Mr.Banana]

Also, the supreme court agrees with me.

Just sayin'

[Mr.Banana]

Let's take this step by step.

1. Do you agree that the first amendment guarantees citizens the right to free speech and religion and/or do you agree that the first amendment precludes the government from infringing on the free exercise of those things?

2. Do you agree with the supreme court's determination that compelling speech is unconstitutional?

3. Regardless of whether you agree, do you acknowledge that the supreme court has decided, definitively, decades ago, that compelling speech is unconstitutional?

4. Do you agree with the supreme court's determination that art is a form of speech?

5. Regardless of whether you agree, do you acknowledge that the supreme court has decided, definitively, already, that art is a form of speech?

6. Do you agree with the supreme court's determination that a custom wedding cake is art?

7. Regardless of whether you agree, do you acknowledge that the supreme court has decided, definitively, already, that a custom wedding cake is art?

Is your answer "no" to any of those questions?

[MadMojoMonkey]

1 - 7: I don't care, because none of that is relevant to what I'm talking about.

My point is simple: You're allowed to think anything you like. You're allowed to hate gays or to think they are morally corrupt or any other bigoted shite that you make up to tell yourself that you're better than other people. I have no qualms with that, and no, that should never be legislated into law, IMO.
You are not allowed to pick and choose who has what rights in the public space, and if you set up a storefront in a public space, then you are not allowed to pick and choose who your customers are. If you want that right, then there are business models that allow you to have ultimate scrutiny in your customers.

I'm not telling anyone they have to sell things to anyone. I'm not telling anyone what they can be offended by.


I said (paraphrasing) IF you cite the Bible as your reason to gay-bash AND IF you don't also divorce-bash, THEN I can't take you seriously.


As for bringing up SCOTUS... that's all you. I don't even see why you think an appeal to authority - that of SCOTUS of all people - as some kind of divine oracle of morality or all things - is relevant.

If you're here to tell me what the law is, then OK... just link me to a government site with the law you want me to understand.
If you're here to ask me what I think should be the law, then what is the law couldn't be less relevant.
You see?

[MadMojoMonkey]

FWIW, your argument about art is a good one.

[OngBonga]

The art argument is solid as fuck. Obviously it's kinda ridiculous to call custom cake making art, but at the same time, it's exactly what it is. If you create something unique, it's art.

...and if you set up a storefront in a public space, then you are not allowed to pick and choose who your customers are.

Not true. Twitter is a "public space" company, and they totally can pick and choose who their customers are. They can give me the boot for literally nothing, and I have no recourse. Pubs are called pubs because it's short for "public house". They can refuse to serve you for no reason, and at least in the UK, if you're asked to leave a pub for no reason, and you refuse, you are committing a crime, namely "trespass on a licenced premises". It's one of the few examples of trespass being a criminal offence in the UK, along with trespass on a railway, and on military property.

[Mr.Banana]

1 - 7: I don't care, because none of that is relevant to what I'm talking about.

Yes it is.

You are not allowed to pick and choose who has what rights in the public space, and if you set up a storefront in a public space, then you are not allowed to pick and choose who your customers are.

Actually, in a lot of cases, you can. It depends on what you're doing. You can't be compelled to do something that interferes with your inalienable rights. That's what inalienable means. Selling a cheesesteak to a gay person doesn't interfere with your right to the free expression of religion. So if you own a cheesesteak stand, you can't discriminate among your customers on the basis of sexuality. But if you're creating a custom wedding cake, then you're creating art, that's an act of speech, and your speech cannot be compelled or controlled by anyone. I'd say you'd have an easy time saying photographers are artists, so they don't have to do gay weddings if they don't want to. Officiants...the person actually speaking the ceremony....surely that person can exercise freedom of speech? What about journalists? The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Can a christian newspaper decline to publish a gay wedding announcement? I'd say yes.

I understand it's a fine line, but you've been acting like there is no line. And there definitely is. You can't be forced to do something that interferes with your inalienable rights. You're lumping everything in under the umbrella of "It's wrong to refuse to sell stuff to gays". It's a little more complicated than that.

If you want that right, then there are business models that allow you to have ultimate scrutiny in your customers.

Are there really business models that allow you to discriminate on the basis of sexuality?

I said (paraphrasing) IF you cite the Bible as your reason to gay-bash AND IF you don't also divorce-bash, THEN I can't take you seriously.

Who exactly is this sentence directed at? Which Christian baker is being stubborn about cakes but is cavalier about divorce? Who are you talking about?

then OK... just link me to a government site with the law you want me to understand.

It's the first amendment of the constitution, you quoted it a few posts back. There is no other "law". Any laws differing from that first amendment have been struck down by the SCOTUS, which is why I brought it up. So now you know what the law is. It says the government can't make you do things against your religion.

You see?

[Mr.Banana]

and if "unity" is your goal....if you want to reduce conflict in our culture......

Don't make people fearful that the hammers of government will punish them for their beliefs. That's NOT going to end well.

[oskar]

MMM, I have to say I really can't respect how you're handling this. You're sitting on the golden opportunity to tell banana he has the inalienable right to free speech and then to immediately ban him, and you're squandering it!

Also... I should probably post this in the physics questions thread but: Is a Trump supporter killing a Trump supporting cop proof that a negative times a negative equals a positive?

I WAITED 8 DAYS! I thought of this on day 1. Don't you dare say too early.

[OngBonga]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...rested-charged


Oh look, a BLM activist who had a knife and stormed the capitol.


The article concludes...

Which leaves us with three questions:


1) Does this mean CNN gave a platform to a domestic terrorist?


2) Did Trump incite this man to commit insurrection too?


3) If he was aware of riotous plans "on underground chats" before Trump's speech, does that mean Trump did not incite "domestic terrorism"?

[MadMojoMonkey]

My point about religion is that you are free to believe whatever you like.

However, you are not free to discriminate against people, even if it is your religious belief.

Thankfully, most Christians do not think their God instructs them to be a bigot, so it's not actually Christianity that is telling those few assholes to gay-bash. It's just something those assholes do and it's not about Christianity at all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it's a categorical "no" whether Trump's speech incited anything to do with the storming of the Capitol building.

The use of the word "incite" is pretty clear, legally. It means Trump would have had to have said something like, "When you get to the Capitol, you make them pay. You drag them out into the streets and show them justice!"

He'd have had to have used language that was a literal instruction to do lawlessness. His speech did not cross any lines like that.
He even instructed the protestors to be peaceful at least once, which will be a very difficult hurdle for a lawyer to prove Trump was "inciting" the lawlessness that followed.


I've heard some other messed up rumors, though... a certain Congressman had all the panic buttons removed from his office prior to the event. Needs time to be confirmed, but that's a sketchy fact at first blush.

[Mr.Banana]

However, you are not free to discriminate against people, even if it is your religious belief.

Yeah dude, we get it. If you own a hot dog stand, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion. Wonderful. If this was 1640, you might be on the cutting edge of political correctness. Can you just please try to have a more nuanced thought for a minute?


Do you believe the government has the power to FORCE a business owner to do something that interferes with the practice of his personal religious beliefs?

Should a muslim painter be forced to draw a portrait desecrating Mohammed?

Should a Christian baker be forced to produce art that speaks in favor of gay marriage?

If you have different answers to those questions, could you please explain the distinction?

[Mr.Banana]

I think it's a categorical "no" whether Trump's speech incited anything to do with the storming of the Capitol building.............His speech did not cross any lines like that.............. a very difficult hurdle for a lawyer

Dude.....this makes me sad. Please turn on TV, open a newspaper, or click around some "news" sources online and look at what's happening.

You're acting like the letter, or even the spirit, of the law matters. No person can intelligently defend the notion that the protests at the capitol were in any way worse or different than what's been happening in major cities across America since May. All summer long we heard the famous MLK quote that "Riots are the language of the unheard, what is America not hearing?"

But when middle class white people aren't being heard....their outrage is labeled as privilege, and "white supremacy"

Kamala Harris promoted a "charity" started to pay bail and legal fees for BLM protesters. The Capitol protesters are on the no-fly list, banned from the internet, and basically 'cancelled' as people.

The actual "law" doesn't matter. Do you know how many laws there are? You probably broke five of them just today. If they can't charge incitement, they'll charge mayhem, or vandalism, or fucking loitering if they have to. They'll pile on all kinds of "aggravating factors" to make sure to get the maximum sentence possible. they'll stretch the definition things so that every footprint you left in the Capitol lobby counts as a separate act of vandalism, each with it's own months-long prison sentence.

It's nice that you *think* it's a categorical "no". But there isn't any world where the actual law matters.

How would Trump, or anyone else defend themselves in court? Who is going to be their lawyer? Trump's lawyers are in the process of getting disbarred....just for being on team Trump! Parler has NO legal representation at the moment. Curt Schilling can't even buy insurance because he doesn't nod in bovine agreement with the talking heads who say "Don't ask questions about the election"

Wake up dude. The law does not matter. That's why 75 million trump voters are pissed off. They see a president who is nothing more than an animated sack of skin reading a teleprompter. His Vice President is a psychotic progressive blaming every obstacle in her way on "white supremacy". The entire executive branch, including the justice department, votes democrat and HATES trump. They also hate Trump supporters, that is everyday middle-class Americans. And now they have the legislative branch in their pocket. One little vote is all it takes to add 4 more justices to the supreme court. You can be sure they won't be on any republican's side. And statehood for DC and Puerto Rico will ensure that the democrats control the legislature for generations to come.

all that is happening right now. Anyone who opposes left-wing progressive politics is not allowed to be a person.

But you think any of them, or especially Trump himself, will get fair treatment under the law???

You had better wake up dude. You can say all the platitudes you want about gay marriage, abortion, trump, or whatever talking point the progressive cult leaders want you to say. You can be a good little left wing soldier for as long as you're useful. But you're white, middle class, and a man. That's three different ways you are an oppressor. And when the time comes that someone needs a scalp....yours is a good as any.

The day will come where you take a job that a pakistani woman wanted, or you fail to hold an elevator for a black guy, or youre photographed with someone who is later exposed as a Proud Boy....and when that happens, there will be no redemption for you. It doesn't matter if you're a gay, transexual, abortion doctor giving all your profits to stop climate change.

If you're ever in the way of someone with less money, less testosterone, or more melanin....you're toast.

That's the world we're in right now, and it's getting worse.

[CoccoBill]

I think the main issue here might be that you, 'Nana, just have a strong tendency to assume what people mean. Aka putting words in their mouths.

Here's an example from earlier that I think lead to this:

So I'm not even getting why this is a debate. You want something that is illegal and technically not feasable under even the most rudimentary interpretation of the constitution. We're not talking about some obscure amendment here. It's the first damn sentence in teh constitution.

This was your direct response to me saying Christians and Pagans should not have special privileges or rights, all humans should have the same rights. You tried to twist that into me saying Christians should have no rights. Either you're expecting everyone to be total idiots and completely unreasonable, or you're trolling on purpose. The effect this has is everyone else (except maybe ong with his mancrush) sees you as either a total idiot and unreasonable, or a troll.

Btw the first sentence of the constitution says nothing about any of this.

[Mr.Banana]

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ckles/2347414/

This could happen to you

It could happen to anyone.

[Mr.Banana]

Bill yesterday.....post 8436

Pagan rights should be the same as christian rights, aka none.

Bill yesterday again....post 8446

Christians should not have rights.

Bill today....

You tried to twist that into me saying Christians should have no rights..

I'm in fucking clown world

[Mr.Banana]

Bill, I do get what you're saying. You're just wrong. You're failing to see the distinctions, and so you're accusing me of twisting.

try and follow me now....

I refuse to acknowledge things like "black rights", "gay rights", "woman's rights" etc. because I believe that groups can't have rights. Individuals do. I believe that's the point you've been trying to make about Christians.

But you're wrong.

Religious people are special in America. That's what the constitution says. It says that Christians, and people of any other religion, have a special inalienable right to practice their religion freely without any interference from government. You may think that's a "human" right, but it isn't. There are lots of countries right now that mix religion and government, often in terrible ways. The UN seems to be going right along with it.

So yes, Christians have special rights in America. So do muslims who refuse to paint pictures of their prophet.

Gay people DON'T have any special rights afforded by the constitution. In fact, for most of american history (and maybe still today) there were many states with completely constitutional laws against sodomy.

Do you see the difference? Religion is in the constitution. Homosexuality isn't. So if you're going to ask the government to intervene in a dispute between the two....religion should win every time.

And yes, that holds even if the religious person is a bigot.

[CoccoBill]

Religious people are special in America. That's what the constitution says. It says that Christians, and people of any other religion, have a special inalienable right to practice their religion freely without any interference from government. You may think that's a "human" right, but it isn't. There are lots of countries right now that mix religion and government, often in terrible ways. The UN seems to be going right along with it.

So yes, Christians have special rights in America. So do muslims who refuse to paint pictures of their prophet.

Gay people DON'T have any special rights afforded by the constitution. In fact, for most of american history (and maybe still today) there were many states with completely constitutional laws against sodomy.

Do you see the difference? Religion is in the constitution. Homosexuality isn't. So if you're going to ask the government to intervene in a dispute between the two....religion should win every time.

And yes, that holds even if the religious person is a bigot.

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject? This started from me saying the US seems to be heading towards more liberal values, and you then asking our opinion about it, what do we think SHOULD be done. Why would it matter what you think the constitution says?

Oh, wait

But you're wrong.

This is just so you get to say that, isn't? Just like Mojo and I said, all you care about is getting to say that and if that requires strawmen, bring them on. You're pathetic.

[Mr.Banana]

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject?

Are you serious?

Look guys, I'm dead serious here. I have no idea what Bill's problem is right now.

post 8491 Bill says....

Here's an example from earlier that I think lead to this.......This was your direct response to me saying Christians and Pagans should not have special privileges or rights

I respond with...

Religious people are special in America because.....

Then bill says....

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject? This started from me saying the US seems to be heading towards more liberal values

Fucking Clown world

[Mr.Banana]

Post 8493 kind of says it all I think

[CoccoBill]

What does your constitution have to do with my personal opinion about what's right?

[Mr.Banana]

What does your constitution have to do with my personal opinion about what's right?

Is this a thread for discussing/debating politics? Or a blog about your feelings?

But ok...let's pretend your personal opinion matters for a minute. I want to change it, because it's wrong.

Your 'personal opinion' is willing to sacrifice religious freedom on the altar of social justice. How is that a good idea?

Just to be crystal clear, again, for what feels like the 1000th time....NO ONE is advocating for any practice where someone is allowed to deny goods or services to a gay person just because they morally object to gayness. No one has ever supported that opinion. Not in this thread. Not in any court case or news story that I've ever heard of.

however, there are cases where a business owner's craft involves his personal speech, religious practice, or other activity that is *protected* under the constitution. In in that narrow set of cases...no cake.


Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

[Mr.Banana]

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

Same questions for Monkeyman

[Poopadoop]

lol, who tf wakes up at 5 in the morning to start aguing on the internet?

[Mr.Banana]

lol, who tf wakes up at 5 in the morning to start aguing on the internet?

Who says I woke up at 5?

These lockdowns are really fucking with me. I'm getting enough sleep. I'm getting quality sleep. But my circadian rhythm is off somehow. I tend to crash somewhere between 6 and 8pm, and I'll get up sometime between 2 and 4.

I've been up for almost 3 hours

[Mr.Banana]

lol, who tf wakes up at 5 in the morning to start aguing on the internet?

[CoccoBill]

Is this a thread for discussing/debating politics? Or a blog about your feelings?

Read this again.

You want something that is illegal and technically not feasable under even the most rudimentary interpretation of the constitution. We're not talking about some obscure amendment here. It's the first damn sentence in teh constitution.

So now suddenly you don't understand what we (actually you) were talking about earlier?

But ok...let's pretend your personal opinion matters for a minute. I want to change it, because it's wrong.

Your 'personal opinion' is willing to sacrifice religious freedom on the altar of social justice. How is that a good idea?

Just to be crystal clear, again, for what feels like the 1000th time....NO ONE is advocating for any practice where someone is allowed to deny goods or services to a gay person just because they morally object to gayness. No one has ever supported that opinion. Not in this thread. Not in any court case or news story that I've ever heard of.

however, there are cases where a business owner's craft involves his personal speech, religious practice, or other activity that is *protected* under the constitution. In in that narrow set of cases...no cake.

Here's what I said:

"IMO a Christian baker has the right believe whatever he wants, but he doesn't have the right to discriminate others based on his beliefs. As long as we're talking about a private person/company doing the discriminating, I don't know where exactly I'd draw the line, possibly not at gay wedding cakes, but any public office/representative should absolutely not practice any of it."

What part exactly do you disagree with? Where does it say "religious freedom should be sacrificed on the altar of social justice"?

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

And like I've already said, ideally there wouldn't be religions, and at least they wouldn't have any special privileges, but as long as that's the case the line needs to be drawn somewhere. IMO not at wedding cakes, but somewhere.

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

No. Do you think the government should not intervene if someone wants to sacrifice a goat or a virgin based on their religion?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

Quite possibly.

[Mr.Banana]

Holy crap Bill. You're lucky I'm a nice guy, and that I'm willing to hold your hand through this...

Question:

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

It's a very specific question about a very specific situation. It requires a "yes" or "no" answer. The answer you gave was a weak-sauce dodge. Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, because it is weak. No one is asking you to draw lines right now. No one is asking about your perfect fantasy world with gumdrop houses and no religions.

I presented a specific, detailed, real-world case. What is your personal opinion on that case?

Is that baker guilty of a crime if he refuses to make the *custom* wedding cake?

[Mr.Banana]

Do you think the government should not intervene if someone wants to sacrifice a goat

The question is worded strangely so won't say yes or no. If someone wants to kill a goat that they own, it's not the gov's business at all. And that's not a religious rights issue. Goats are property.

or a virgin based on their religion?

is this a sincere question? Do you really need an answer to this?

[oskar]

I think it's a categorical "no" whether Trump's speech incited anything to do with the storming of the Capitol building.

Holy shit and I thought I was the psychopath here who wanted to see the US burn to the ground. But I can respect it!


Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

[CoccoBill]

So now you're suddenly asking me if I think it's a crime? Which is it?

No, I do not think it's a crime, but hell if I know even what state that is in and what backwards state legislation they have.

[CoccoBill]

is this a sincere question? Do you really need an answer to this?

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

[Mr.Banana]

Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

Is this a serious question? I do have an answer if you actually want it.

[Mr.Banana]

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

[Mr.Banana]

So now you're suddenly asking me if I think it's a crime? Which is it?

Stop dodging the question. Should the guy have to bake the custom wedding cake or not?

No, I do not think it's a crime, but hell if I know even what state that is in and what backwards state legislation they have.

It doesn't matter. States can't make laws that don't conform with the Constitution. That's what makes them states and not countries.

[CoccoBill]

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

Now, did I ask you whether you think under current legislation the action is considered a crime, or

"Do you think the government should not intervene if..."

Now rate your performance on answering the question.

[CoccoBill]

Stop dodging the question. Should the guy have to bake the custom wedding cake or not?




It doesn't matter. States can't make laws that don't conform with the Constitution. That's what makes them states and not countries.

Dude you're cracking me up. In the first sentence you complain I'm dodging the question, and then calmly proceed to reply to my answer. Do you even realize any of this yourself, or is this all just a blur to you?

[Mr.Banana]

Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

Just in case you're serious, here's the answer. Actually I'd like to give two answers.

First is...Sure! Have it your way. Let's say Twitter is exercising it's free speech by censoring/banning whatever people/voices/opinions it chooses. Is that the point you were trying to make? I love it. LET'S DO THAT. Now Twitter "owns" every tweet that it leaves up. Now they're a publisher and not a platform. Now they are responsible for what they publish. Awesome. Let's live in that world, please.

Now the second answer....the one for the real world....the one where still pretend twitter is a platform.

I get that Twitter is a private company, it can set it's own standards of conduct, and it can discipline people for violating those standards as it sees fit. Fine. Fair enough. And if they have a little bit of a political bias, society can tolerate it to a certain degree. They have to fill a 24 hour news cycle somehow.

But we are at the point where Twitter is big enough that it's necessary for full competitive access to the marketplace. So it has enormous power over just about everything. And what they are doing is selectively censoring voices along ideological and political lines on a large scale.

That violates about a zillion campaign finance and election interference laws. and frankly it's fucking dangerous. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I'm not about to sacrifice democracy on the altar of free speech, all so twitter's stock price can go up a quarter of a fucking point. No thanks.

And the coordination between twitter, google, amazon, apple, and facebook is illegal. they're monopolies engaging in anti-comeptitive behavior. But who would prosecute them? You saw what happened to the congresspeople who objected to the election. They're legally allowed to do that. Free speech and whatnot. But all of their corporate donors bailed, publicly. They're done. They'll never get elected to anything again because the corporations that choose our leaders have decided to excommunicate them.

So who the fuck is gonna have the balls to prosecute an anti-trust case against Twitter?

Oskar, I hope you realize how toxic your question is.

[Mr.Banana]

Now, did I ask you whether you think under current legislation the action is considered a crime, or

"Do you think the government should not intervene if..."

Now rate your performance on answering the question.

If someone is about to be murdered then everyone, not just the government, has an obligation to intervene.

No religion exists in the west that practices human sacrifice. No one could use first amendment religious freedom as a a credible defense for murder.


You really some fucking balls accusing me of wiley debate tactics. This is fucking bullshit man. Christianity is a REAL religion. There's more than a billion people practicing it worldwide. It has long-standing, well documented, deeply held beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and they passionately object to extending it's definition to include practices they regard as sins. That's what Christianity, and it's billion-plus members, believe.

But you think you can poke a hole in their argument by inventing some human sacrifice religion that does not, could not, or would not exist anywhere except in your stubborn head. "Ooooh, does that mean I can sacrifice virgins for my religion??" is that really your fucking argument dude?

[CoccoBill]

So you're saying criminal law supersedes the 1st amendment, am I reading this correctly?

[Mr.Banana]

So you're saying criminal law supersedes the 1st amendment, am I reading this correctly?

Absolutely not.

The first amendment doesn't apply to your bullshit imaginary human sacrifice religion. That's what post 8511 was about. I explained why the 1st amendment isn't being superseded. The 1st amendment is just not part of the equation.

[Mr.Banana]

There's already a legal definition of what is and is not a religion. Nothing that practices human sacrifice qualifies. So what you've presented is not a logical or legitimate challenge to my argument.

Can you just give me a straight yes or no answer to this question....

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

[Mr.Banana]

Welcome to clown world where offending gays = sacrificing virgins

[CoccoBill]

Absolutely not.

The first amendment doesn't apply to your bullshit imaginary human sacrifice religion. That's what post 8511 was about. I explained why the 1st amendment isn't being superseded. The 1st amendment is just not part of the equation.

Where does it say that? Why do you get to decide which religions are bullshit imaginary?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[CoccoBill]

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

[Mr.Banana]

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

lol, keep reading

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists. The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public. For example, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of Polygamy that was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself

[Mr.Banana]

[gov't] can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists.

So.....is there a substantial and compelling state interest in prohibiting human sacrifice?

is there a substantial and compelling state interest in protecting gays' access to wedding cakes?

Do you see why your whole premise is bogus now?

[Mr.Banana]

I can't believe the person who says virgin sacrifice = gay wedding cake is accusing me of arguing in bad faith

fucking clown world

[OngBonga]

What's wrong with this image?

[Mr.Banana]

What's wrong with this image?

Not sure what you're getting at. Serving food without gloves seems shitty. That bearded guy should be wearing a mask.

Also.....those guys don't look like they have enough guns.

[CoccoBill]

I can't believe the person who says virgin sacrifice = gay wedding cake is accusing me of arguing in bad faith

fucking clown world

Who dat?

[CoccoBill]

[gov't] can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists.

Ah ok so not inalienable, gotcha.

[OngBonga]

Not sure what you're getting at. Serving food without gloves seems shitty. That bearded guy should be wearing a mask.

Also.....those guys don't look like they have enough guns.

It says PIZZA on the pizza boxes.

Not AZZIP

Now look at the flags on the sleeves.

This image is being promoted by at least one MSM agency (Daily Mail).

[Mr.Banana]

I'm still not seeing it. I see Pizza and American flags.

Also see the lady in purple is wearing a mask with a "Chiefs" team logo. So she's guilty of perpetuating the offensive cultural appropriation of native american symbols.

[OngBonga]

I thought I'd make it pretty clear with my last post.

The USA flags are reversed but the pizza boxes are not. This is a photoshopped image, unless the National Guard actually wear inverted flags on their sleeves.

[OngBonga]

The lady in purple is Vicky Hartzler, according to the Daily Mail.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The government didn't force the cake maker to open a business with a public store front.

Simply claiming "religion" is not an excuse that means you don't have to follow the law.


Hiding behind your religion as a reason to treat people as less than you should not be protected by law.
Just like a religion that practices human sacrifice is not protected by law.


Christian morals do not include being a bigot. Christian morals include a policy of forgiveness, reserving judgement for the Lord, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan.

A bigot hiding behind his religion as an excuse to be an ass should not be protected by law.
A religion that encourages bigotry and/or hate should not be protected by law.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought I'd make it pretty clear with my last post.

The USA flags are reversed but the pizza boxes are not. This is a photoshopped image, unless the National Guard actually wear inverted flags on their sleeves.

The stars always go forward, ong.

The flag on a military uniform always has the stars to the front of the person.

[OngBonga]

How about an Islamic cake maker? He won't want to make a custom gay wedding cake either.

And how is this any different to someone commissioning a song from a songwriter? Perhaps I want an artist to write a song about my gay feelings, and that artist says "sorry I don't want to because I'm a fucking bigot who hates gays". Should he be compelled to by law?

[OngBonga]

The stars always go forward, ong.

The flag on a military uniform always has the stars to the front of the person.

Ok fair enough, seems strange but if that's a fact then I guess I'm wrong, it's not shopped.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How about an Islamic cake maker? He won't want to make a custom gay wedding cake either.

And how is this any different to someone commissioning a song from a songwriter? Perhaps I want an artist to write a song about my gay feelings, and that artist says "sorry I don't want to because I'm a fucking bigot who hates gays". Should he be compelled to by law?

The key phrases are "public store front" and "their choice of business model."

If they are a private business, a members only club, or in any way not openly inviting for a random person to walk in and solicit a service they are there to sell, then they have ultimate say in to whom they sell whatever it is they sell.

However, if they are NOT those things, then they have to treat all the random people who solicit their services with equality.


If it is a public space, then they cannot discriminate. If it is a private space, then they can. The law only enters those private spaces under higher scrutiny or some legal BS language. You still can't murder anyone in your home, I mean. You do have nearly ultimate say in who can and can't be in your home (always exceptions - criminal investigations and whatnot). Your freedom of speech is wider in your home than outside of it - not all speech is protected in public spaces, but within your home, they may be. The classic example of yelling "theater" in a crowded firehouse or something. You can yell a lot of stuff in your own home that you cannot yell in a crowded theater.

[OngBonga]

The key phrases are "public store front" and "their choice of business model."

The first point is worth debating, the second is not. You can't say a cake maker chooses his occupation any more than a songwriter. How are you drawing the line here?

"Public store front" seems tenuous to me, but maybe there is legal basis to this. So let's say the cake maker decides instead of having a "public" store, he has on online store instead. Why should the online seller have extra legal right to pick and choose his customers than the person who has a physical shop?

[OngBonga]

The classic example of yelling "theater" in a crowded firehouse or something.

lol

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think if the cake maker's argument to deny making the cake is on the basis of artistic reasons, then they should be willing to make "a" cake for the customer, just not a cake that goes against their aesthetic sensibilities.

However, if they are claiming artistic reasons to not make "any" cake at all for the couple, then that strikes me as incoherent.

What is the artistic reason to not make the cake?
I'm sorry if it's been explained and I don't remember.

[OngBonga]

I think if the cake maker's argument to deny making the cake is on the basis of artistic reasons, then they should be willing to make "a" cake for the customer, just not a cake that goes against their aesthetic sensibilities.


However, if they are claiming artistic reasons to not make "any" cake at all for the couple, then that strikes me as incoherent.

Well, I agree here and I think banana does to, though obviously I can't speak for him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The first point is worth debating, the second is not. You can't say a cake maker chooses his occupation any more than a songwriter. How are you drawing the line here?

"Public store front" seems tenuous to me, but maybe there is legal basis to this. So let's say the cake maker decides instead of having a "public" store, he has on online store instead. Why should the online seller have extra legal right to pick and choose his customers than the person who has a physical shop?

Well... setting aside that the cake maker absolutely does choose their occupation... but let's assume they're a born cake maker, and they'd rather die than not make cakes. I'd watch that movie (I mean, if I watched movies, I would).

Fine, they can make cakes. They can open a private cake club, members only, and sell their custom cakes to the finest hotels and fancy pants rich people, and they can further choose to only sell cakes to those hotels and fancy pants rich people who are also bigots.
I find such behavior despicable, but I would not want that behavior made illegal. It's unsavory, but only people already complicit in that aspect are involved. They are free to hate in private, IMO.

IDK about the internet. It's a fuzzy line if there is one. It's probably all gray area, really, and I simply don't know enough about it, or have the legal backing to make a sweeping statement. If you have some specific cases to ponder over, I'll give them a think.

[OngBonga]

Well... setting aside that the cake maker absolutely does choose their occupation...

So does the songwriter. Just because he's good at writing songs, doesn't mean it's the only thing he can do.

I find such behavior despicable

I agree, but this isn't the point. I'm not seeking to justify discrimination against gays, but at the same time I don't want to see artists being compelled to do things they don't want to do.

IDK about the internet. It's a fuzzy line if there is one. It's probably all gray area, really, and I simply don't know enough about it, or have the legal backing to make a sweeping statement. If you have some specific cases to ponder over, I'll give them a think.

For me, the physical store and the internet store should be subject to the same laws and regulations. Ok the internet store doesn't have to worry about the health and safety of customers in their store, to give one example of a natural difference, but there's no reason the internet seller should have more right to choose his customers than the physical store.

[Mr.Banana]

Monkey, I'm going to try and explain this one more time. I'm shocked at how tragically you're missing the point here.

Most of what I know and think on this subject comes from the case of the baker in colorado whose claim went all the way up to the supreme court. The supreme court and I have completely congruent opinions on this case. So what I'm about to explain to you isn't just a banana-rant, it's also the law of the land.

You can go to the grocery store today, walk up to the bakery counter, and you'll find a catalog of all the different cakes you can order from their bakery. Most of them are for little kid's birthdays. But they'll write "happy retirement" or "sorry you got pwned in the forum" on a cake if you want them to. You can point to a picture of a basic cake, with a predetermined design and say "give me that one please"

Anyone can do that. Even gays. I don't know if the baker in the big case sold cakes like that (standard designs out of a catalog), but if he does, he has to sell them to gays. If a gay comes in and asks for a birthday cake, this baker would sell him the cake. If a gay person asks for a retirement cake he'll get it. If he asks for a 4th of July cake, he gets it. If he asks for a cake celebrating his anal prolapse...he gets it.

The baker in the big case AGREES with all of this. He doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of being gay. What he has a problem with is *participating* in something he finds sinful. It's extremely important that you understand this. He's not saying "I don't sell cakes to gays". He is saying "please leave me out of your sin". A gay person having a birthday is not a sin...here's a cake. A gay person retiring is not a sin...here's a cake. A gay person celebrating 4th of july is not a sin....he gets a cake. Is this making sense now?

What is the artistic reason to not make the cake?
I'm sorry if it's been explained and I don't remember.

It's not an "artistic" reason. The issue is that art = speech (not debatable). the government can't compel speech. It can't punish you for not engaging in certain speech. Therefore it cannot compel art. And it can't punish you for not producing certain art.

In this case the artist believes that producing the art (the speech) is sinful and against his religious beliefs. Making a CUSTOM wedding cake means you're participating in the ceremony....which is a sin.

Christian morals include a policy of forgiveness, reserving judgement for the Lord, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan.

There is also a policy against sinning yourself. The baker doesn't care if you're gay. He doesn't care if you go get married. He just doesn't want to be part of it. That's all.


If it helps clarify, this same baker also refuses to make Halloween cakes, for everyone. He believes celebrating Halloween is a sin. So he doesn't celebrate it. And he won't help you celebrate it. For the exact same reason he won't help you celebrate your gay wedding.

Please tell me specifically if there is still anything you don't understand

[Poopadoop]

Bit of an aside, but could they not just go to another bakery? You'd think they'd prefer to give their custom to someone whose values are more aligned with theirs (or whatever). Also, seems easier than going "Arrgghghgghg!! Your trampling on my rights to cake!!" and spending the rest of your life in court.

Also, don't think the baker was outside their rights to refuse service to someone, even if you don't agree with their reasons. But, before banana blows a load in his pants, I think twitter can also block whoever they want if that person agrees to their rules when they sign up and then breaks them. Even if that person is orange.

[Mr.Banana]

Bit of an aside, but could they not just go to another bakery?

That's actually not an aside. that was the whole point I was making in the beginning.

they could just go to another bakery. But they don't. Which makes me think they went looking for the one baker who would put up a fight, and decided to try and bully him.

What I said in the beginning that started this hullaballoo is that based on what I see, gay activism seems to be mostly about harassing Christians.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree, but this isn't the point. I'm not seeking to justify discrimination against gays, but at the same time I don't want to see artists being compelled to do things they don't want to do.

I'm totally with you there... except that we're both being a little disingenuous.

If you are witness to a crime, you are compelled to truthfully report what you witnessed to the authorities, though you may not wish to do so.
I.e. there are times when the law compels certain speech.
The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself, but now I'm just noting exceptions to exceptions.

More to the point, I don't see how selling someone anything that happens to be used in a gay wedding somehow means the supply chain of resources that got that item to that point is endorsing gay marriage. The cake maker is claiming that by selling someone a cake, they are being "forced" to endorse gay marriage. I do not see how that is true.

I mean... what if the flour mills decided they wouldn't sell flour to anyone who makes gay cakes - or anyone who buys their flour and then sells it to someone who makes cakes? Is that still their artistic choice? Isn't the specific production method of flour they use an art form of its own? What are the limits of this art claim?

What about the chicken that laid the eggs? That hen never got any cock. What if it was a lesbian chicken? Is the baker already complicit in supporting the gay chicken cabal?!

For me, the physical store and the internet store should be subject to the same laws and regulations. Ok the internet store doesn't have to worry about the health and safety of customers in their store, to give one example of a natural difference, but there's no reason the internet seller should have more right to choose his customers than the physical store.

I'd probably consider ebay or amazon to be more public-type internet places, but they do require a private membership sign up to use, and therefore fall into my category of private club and free to choose their clientele.

It's all kinds of fuzzy on the internet.

[oskar]

...And what they are doing is selectively censoring voices along ideological and political lines on a large scale.

That violates about a zillion campaign finance and election interference laws. and frankly it's fucking dangerous. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I'm not about to sacrifice democracy on the altar of free speech, all so twitter's stock price can go up a quarter of a fucking point. No thanks.

You're acting like people are getting banned for conservative ideology. Trump didn't get banned because he was arguing against austerity politics. Trump got banned because he was deliberately spreading disinformation and encouraging violence, which is against twitter's TOS. If those are part of your political platform (like ldo they are) then bad luck.

Maybe try not losing so hard next time and your side can influence political discourse again.

[oskar]

I have to say I'm disappointed you guys are letting yourself get sidetracked into this stupid argument. MAGA went down so hard it will take a miracle of biblical proportions for R's to retake the house senate or presidency for the next 8 years. Trump will get dragged out in 5 days. A 9/11's worth of americans is dying every single day as a direct result of MAGA politics. Trump might actually get convicted in the senate and could conceivably manage to take down his family business for no other reason than being such a moron.

LFDO Nana wants to talk about cake. You don't have to oblige.