*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

My eyes hurt after reading that.

We're not talking about handed-ness.

Maybe this isn't landing with you because you live in a shithole country that's not America. But here, under the very first amendment, in the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights, citizens are guaranteed freedom of religion. They can believe, and practice whatever religion they want to. And by any legal standard or precedent, Christianity is a religion. And their stance against gay marriage is a legitimately held belief, whether gay people like it or not.

Their right to exercise that belief is an inalienable constitutional right. We dont' bend the rules for wedding cakes.

However there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to be left handed.

[CoccoBill]

How about bending the rules for someone's right to honor kill their daughter or sacrifice a virgin? The constitution says nothing about christianity.

However there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to be left handed.

More and more people seem to disagree, and gravitate towards the left that promises them these things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But here, under the very first amendment, in the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights, citizens are guaranteed freedom of religion. They can believe, and practice whatever religion they want to. And by any legal standard or precedent, Christianity is a religion. And their stance against gay marriage is a legitimately held belief, whether gay people like it or not.

Their right to exercise that belief is an inalienable constitutional right. We dont' bend the rules for wedding cakes.

However there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to be left handed.

That's not what the first amendment says or grants. Look into it.

"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."

It does not grant any citizens any rights. It is a restriction on the power of the federal government.

In short... that doesn't mean what you think it means.


The issue with wedding cakes (and there are many, many court cases about this one issue) is almost always in small towns, where there is only 1 cake shop, or 2 and both of them are being prejudiced asses.

If the shop is open to the general public, then they cannot discriminate based on nonsense. If it is a private organization, they have far wider leeway in how they choose their clientele.

I can't imagine any laws have been passed or court ruling made that have found a church (a private institution) must perform it's voodoo rituals on anyone who passes by and wants one.
Wanting gay marriage to be performed and recognized by the state is one thing. Wanting it to be recognized by the church is another thing.
I don't know all the facts, but I hope that the courts are not trying to tell churches what to do.

[Mr.Banana]

That's not what the first amendment says or grants. Look into it.

It does not grant any citizens any rights. It is a restriction on the power of the federal government.

oh stop it. "Freedom of religion" and "gov can't prohibit 'free exercise' of religion" is not a hair I'm about to split with you.

The issue with wedding cakes (and there are many, many court cases about this one issue) is almost always in small towns, where there is only 1 cake shop, or 2 and both of them are being prejudiced asses.

Dude...wal-mart sells wedding cakes. Name one place where the spiteful homophobe is the only game in town.

If the shop is open to the general public, then they cannot discriminate based on nonsense. If it is a private organization, they have far wider leeway in how they choose their clientele.

I don't know what you mean here. But it's probably wrong. If you call up a plumbing supply company, who may not have a public storefront, they can't deny you a water heater for being mormon.

I can't imagine any laws have been passed or court ruling made that have found a church (a private institution) must perform it's voodoo rituals on anyone who passes by and wants one.

I recall hearing about some cases involving actual churches. But usually it's a case where someone rents out part of their mansion, or their historic barn, or something like that. In other words, it's their home, and they'd rather not entertain an event that is an affront to their religious beliefs. That seems totally reasonable to me.

I don't know all the facts, but I hope that the courts are not trying to tell churches what to do.

They've arrested a number of priests for violating lockdowns. Not really part of the gay issue. But if you think the gov't isn't trying to get its tentacles in churches, you're wrong.

[Poopadoop]

They've arrested a number of priests for violating lockdowns. But if you think the gov't isn't trying to get its tentacles in churches, you're wrong.

lol gold.

[Mr.Banana]

lol gold.

Why?

[Mr.Banana]

It is a privilege to lead a life where you're not discriminated against for anything you are.

Exactly ZERO people enjoy this privilege.

Sure racial, sexual, gender, political, ideological, and religious bias exist. But if you really look at the data, short people have it rough. So do ugly people. So do people with glasses. Bald men make less money than men with hair. If you're fortunate enough to live to an old age, you can be sure you'll be discriminated against for that.

We could do this all day.

If your point is that you wish for a world without discrimination...alright, fine. How many unicorns do you own in this fantasy of yours?

[CoccoBill]

Exactly ZERO people enjoy this privilege.

Sure racial, sexual, gender, political, ideological, and religious bias exist. But if you really look at the data, short people have it rough. So do ugly people. So do people with glasses. Bald men make less money than men with hair. If you're fortunate enough to live to an old age, you can be sure you'll be discriminated against for that.

Well how many of those things do you feel discriminated for? How many times has one of them denied you service somewhere?

If your point is that you wish for a world without discrimination...alright, fine. How many unicorns do you own in this fantasy of yours?

Out of all the things wrong in the world, especially within the realm of politics, pretty much 0% are completely solvable under all circumstances. Do you therefore think nothing should be ever done about anything?

[Mr.Banana]

Well how many of those things do you feel discriminated for? How many times has one of them denied you service somewhere?

You're moving the goalpost now.

A minute ago you gave an off the wall example about a left-handed person having to deal with people snickering behind his back. Well short, ugly, bald, old, and bespectacled people probably deal with that same thing. But why is that your only definition of "privilege"?

or why does it have to involve the denial of service?

bald men can get jobs. But over their lifetimes, on average, they'll make less than men with hair. Same goes for women with small breasts. or fat people. You can't pinpoint one specific event of discrimination. But it clearly exists.

[Poopadoop]

You're moving the goalpost now.
A minute ago you gave an off the wall example about a left-handed person having to deal with people snickering behind his back.

Well that's not really even close to what he said, but at least it's nice to see you haven't given up on the whole reductio ad bananum form of argument.

[Mr.Banana]

Well that's not really even close to what he said,

Really?

left-handed person having to deal with people snickering behind his back.

People sneer at you when they hear you're left-handed, some might even throw some slurs.

Judges?

[CoccoBill]

You're moving the goalpost now.

A minute ago you gave an off the wall example about a left-handed person having to deal with people snickering behind his back. Well short, ugly, bald, old, and bespectacled people probably deal with that same thing. But why is that your only definition of "privilege"?

or why does it have to involve the denial of service?

bald men can get jobs. But over their lifetimes, on average, they'll make less than men with hair. Same goes for women with small breasts. or fat people. You can't pinpoint one specific event of discrimination. But it clearly exists.

One of us is not following the conversation. The left-handed example was an analogy to being gay, something you are which you have no control over. Indeed there are many things people get discriminated over. If one has never personally experienced that, they may not recognize it when it happens to others, or at least not fully understand how it feels. Hence the question about your experiences of discrimination. The denial of service part was due to the subject we were having, about gays being refused service, whether cakes or church ceremonies. Yes, there are instances or institutional discrimination which are far more subtle, which one may never even notice, but I wasn't talking about them when gauging why you seem to lack empathy for gays.

[Mr.Banana]

Do you therefore think nothing should be ever done about anything?

For the most part, yes

[CoccoBill]

For the most part, yes

If tthis is your position you should just stop posting. Because it's as wrong as wrong can be.

[Mr.Banana]

If tthis is your position you should just stop posting. Because it's as wrong as wrong can be.

Why?

The government sucks at everything

Everything

You might not realize that because you live in a tiny shithole pothead country. But try running a country as big as the US, as diverse as the US, and the only way you'll get anything done is to be crooked or tyrannical.

So yeah, the government is better off doing nothing. Just maintain the military, ensure a fair marketplace, provide a decent education, and leave the rest to the people.

[Poopadoop]

I hear a lot of stories about people who were shot by the cops for being short, and an older couple once couldn't find anyone to bake them a wedding cake just 'cause they were old. Oh, and there was that time that kid in my class who wore glasses got called "four-eyes" by someone. That was brutal. I think it scarred him to this day.

[Mr.Banana]

Bill. Let's say you're a painter. Not like a contractor type painter. You make portraits and paintings. People call you up and say "I want a portrait of my great aunt lola.....here's a photo, now make it into a painting"

Can you make a painting where she's riding a horse? Sure.

Can you make the panting show her on a sailboat? Sure.

Can you make the painting show her choke-slamming muhammed? Ummmm.....

Would you be within your rights to refuse that portrait commission? How is that different than the baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake?

[CoccoBill]

Would you be within your rights to refuse that portrait commission? How is that different than the baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake?

Sure, I'm a private business, I can do whatever I want within law. There's (to my knowledge) nothing in the law there that makes it illegal to refuse making offensive paintings.

The difference is that in the wedding cake scenario the business is refusing service based on who or what the customers are, and in your scenario based on what the customer is asking.

[Mr.Banana]

Sure, I'm a private business, I can do whatever I want within law. There's (to my knowledge) nothing in the law there that makes it illegal to refuse making offensive paintings.

The difference is that in the wedding cake scenario the business is refusing service based on who or what the customers are, and in your scenario based on what the customer is asking.

No. there's no difference. YOU seem to think that YOU get to decide what is and isn't offensive.

You're saying its ok to refuse making "offensive paintings". But not ok to refuse to make "offensive cakes".

To make that claim, you have to arbitrarily decide, yourself, along your chosen ideological lines, that a gay wedding isn't offensive, but humiliating muhammed is offensive.

That's a matter of ideological opinion that you want to spin into law. That's exactly the kind of thing the constitution was meant to protect against.

[CoccoBill]

No. there's no difference. YOU seem to think that YOU get to decide what is and isn't offensive.

You're saying its ok to refuse making "offensive paintings". But not ok to refuse to make "offensive cakes".

To make that claim, you have to arbitrarily decide, yourself, along your chosen ideological lines, that a gay wedding isn't offensive, but humiliating muhammed is offensive.

That's a matter of ideological opinion that you want to spin into law. That's exactly the kind of thing the constitution was meant to protect against.

Cool story bro. Glad Mojo already replied so I don't have to.

[Mr.Banana]

Cool story bro. Glad Mojo already replied so I don't have to.

Lol, he's made the exact same mistake.

You don't get to decide for someone else what they find offensive or morally objectionable.

[Mr.Banana]

Why can't a Christian baker decide for himself what offends him?

A painter can decide that a certain scene is offensive, and refuse to paint it. But a baker can't decide that gay marriage offends him, and refuse to bake the cake?

Explain that please?

[Mr.Banana]

I had a friend go into a tattoo parlor once. She wanted birds all over her arm from her elbow to her wrist. (gross)

Thankfully, the tattoo artist refused. He said he "doesn't draw dead birds". His argument was that if you put birds on your forearm, and your arms are usually at your sides, it will always look like the birds are flying down.

He said he *would* make a tattoo like that for someone who was the lead singer of a band. If you're going to be photographed holding a microphone often, then that tattoo might be alright.

This is a business, open to the public, determining who can and can't have certain tattoos based on their occupation.

Are you outraged?

[Mr.Banana]

It's a little different with the venues.

If what you offer is a function room and catering facilities.....then you don't have to compromise your morals to offer that to gay people. You're just renting a room. You don't have to do anything different for gay people than you do for straight people. You don't have to do anything contrary to your faith. Christians are allowed to rent rooms to gay people.

But when it's in people's houses, or in churches......that's when I start to think "these fuckers just want to bully people"

[Mr.Banana]

It's not like the baker has a "Cakerator 5000" in the back where he just has to push a button and a wedding cake pops out. The baker in the 'famous' case, the one that went to the US Supreme court, he made custom cakes. Each one was a unique creation requiring his artistic talents.

Art is a form of speech. And in a country with free speech, you can't MAKE someone say something. You can't make someone create art.

You can't compel speech. That's not something you can do in a free country.

That's why, in the case of the Christian baker, the courts ruled in favor of the baker.

The christian baker will sell birthday cakes to gays. So it's not like he's against gays. He's just against gay marriage. You don't have to agree with him. But he is allowed to believe whatever he likes. And no one should have the power to force him to say otherwise.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake in the shape of a dick, then sure... artistic reasons for declining that sale.
If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake that looks and tastes much like any other wedding cake, then no artistic reasons for declining the sale, IMO.

Just like you can't refuse to sell things to Mormons or to Christians. Allowing that kind of behavior foments a culture war. It is antithetical to a society of free people, free to live and love and worship as they please without fear of being denied common rights when they are in a public space.

You defending the rights of a Christian to deny service based on faith is equivalent to arguing that it's legal to deny Christians service based on their faith. This policy pushes Americans into their little cults, it doesn't unify us; it divides us.

The notion that a gay couple marrying is an affront to anyone is total BS, anyway. The Bible mentions gayness maybe - MAYBE - 3 - 4 times, and at least one of those is in Leviticus. LEVITICUS! Go ahead and read some of the verses from leviticus and tell me any of that has any bearing on modern life. "Thou shalt not wear clothes of multiple fibers" or some shit is in there. Well... damn us all to hell for our cotton-polyester blends.

Whereas the Bible, in no uncertain terms, says that divorce is a sin against God like over 100 times. So when someone gets all frothy at the mouth over the Bible telling them gay is the bad, I can't take them seriously unless they're on a personal crusade to outlaw divorce.

Plus - Christianity teaches to reserve judgement for the lord, and to turn the other cheek, and to be a 'good Samaritan.'
So tell me how sticking it to the gays is upholding Christian morality, again.

[Mr.Banana]

If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake in the shape of a dick, then sure... artistic reasons for declining that sale.
If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake that looks and tastes much like any other wedding cake, then no artistic reasons for declining the sale, IMO.

A custom cake never looks like any other wedding cake. That's what makes it custom. You're asking an artist to make art celebrating something he doesn't want to celebrate. That's compelled speech. The supreme court outlawed compelled speech for good in the 40's I think. It's black and white here.

If he has a "Cakerator 5000" in his kitchen, and all he has to do is type in "Wedding Cake" before the machine spits out a generic, cookie-cutter creation. Then yes, he has to sell it to gay people.

Just like you can't refuse to sell things to Mormons or to Christians. You defending the rights of a Christian to deny service based on faith is equivalent to arguing that it's legal to deny Christians service based on their faith.

You're conflating two completely different things. You can't deny service to a Christian just because you're offended by leviticus. You can perform a science experiment for a catholic without compromising any of your morals. All they want is a science experiment. Religion doesn't even play into it. Hence, you're not allowed to discriminate like that.

The baker making a custom cake, a custom piece of art, an act of speech is completely different. In that case the baker is being asked to participate in something he morally objects to. I don't think it's offensive to draw mohammed, even flatteringly. A muslim painter would probably disagree. He shouldn't have to make that painting if he doesn't want to.

The notion that a gay couple marrying is an affront to anyone is total BS, anyway. The Bible mentions gayness maybe - MAYBE - 3 - 4 times, and at least one of those is in Leviticus. LEVITICUS! Go ahead and read some of the verses from leviticus and tell me any of that has any bearing on modern life. "Thou shalt not wear clothes of multiple fibers" or some shit is in there. Well... damn us all to hell for our cotton-polyester blends.

I'm not sure if you're being funny here, but if you're not then what you said is offensive and dangerous. Here you've decided for someone else what they are and aren't allowed to find offensive. And instead of supporting your argument, you just mocked Christianity. You don't have to like it dude, but people are free to believe what they want. You typed that bile literally one sentence after you talk about things that should be "unifying" us.

And you're doing something else I really don't like here....you are somehow drawing a line between gay wedding cake, and choke-slamming mohammed. You say "total BS" when it comes to the Baker's reservations. But surely you would allow the muslim painter to refuse to desecrate the prophet. So somewhere in there, you monkey-man, have decided where the threshold for "offensive" is.

You really shouldn't be doing that. And FOR SURE the government shouldn't be doing that. And that's really the point here. Who defines what is offensive? The answer to that question is: Exactly who you don't want defining what's offensive.

Whereas the Bible, in no uncertain terms, says that divorce is a sin against God like over 100 times. So when someone gets all frothy at the mouth over the Bible telling them gay is the bad, I can't take them seriously unless they're on a personal crusade to outlaw divorce.

If you haven't noticed, the really sincere christians are down on divorce too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're really funny, you know, nanners?

You never actually argue against the points someone makes. You just spin them into something you want to argue with and argue with that, instead.

It's like... if your goal is entertainment, then you're doing a fine job.
But if your goal is persuasion, you suck at is so baaaaad.

**
You're allowed to be offended. You're not allowed to discriminate. What's so hard to understand?

Get it?

[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]

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]

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]

FWIW, your argument about art is a good one.

[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?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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

This could happen to you

It could happen to anyone.

[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

[CoccoBill]

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

[Mr.Banana]

Post 8493 kind of says it all I think

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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."

[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]

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?

[CoccoBill]

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

Ah ok so not inalienable, gotcha.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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

[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.