*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

So 10 senators voted for impeachment. That's not many, but I guess still a bit surprising. Those 10 did that knowing they'll face the wrath of Trumpster divers, so in effect putting their career in jeopardy. Very few people make those decisions lightly, most of them probably have families to take care of. It's sad that those things directly interfere with the job they're doing, which should be making things better, not pandering to whoever can further their own careers.

There are still some republicans that think they can shed Trump and return to the good ol' days of neo-conservatism. They think Mitt Romney might actually matter again. That kind of thing.

They're wrong, of course. But they'll learn that in time.


Some others just don't see a future for themselves in a populist platform, even if it's called republican. I'm betting you see at least 5 to 10 republicans change teams and start calling themselves democrat just to stay in the game. Voting for impeachment is a surrender flag

[CoccoBill]

I'm sure that applies to some. Still I think for many if not most, they've been for years aware that the general population is moving to support a more liberal agenda, without gerrymandering and the electoral college they would be irrelevant. Trumpism gave them a chance to become relevant again, abandoning what you've stood for to maintain power. Being willing to ignore the bigotry and craziness for SCOTUS seats and tax cuts. Now that Trump's approval has plummeted to 34% I'm sure many are questioning how long they want to keep supporting him.

[Mr.Banana]

Now that Trump's approval has plummeted to 34% I'm sure many are questioning how long they want to keep supporting him.

I saw a poll reported yesterday saying over 95% of those who voted for Trump in 2020 would vote for him again, even though he got impeached a second time.

[Mr.Banana]

they've been for years aware that the general population is moving to support a more liberal agenda,

Is this one of those stupid traps where you interchange the current definition of "liberal" with the classic British definition from the 1700's? Because I hate that fucking game.

If by liberal, you mean leftist, democrat, progressive, or socialist, or any degree of those words....you're wrong.

[CoccoBill]

Is this one of those stupid traps where you interchange the current definition of "liberal" with the classic British definition from the 1700's? Because I hate that fucking game.

If by liberal, you mean leftist, democrat, progressive, or socialist, or any degree of those words....you're wrong.

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

[Mr.Banana]

Trumpism gave them a chance to become relevant again, abandoning what you've stood for to maintain power. Being willing to ignore the bigotry and craziness for SCOTUS seats and tax cuts.

You just described every politician every, and just about every member of the ruling class in America.

I can open any media source right now and find a dozen examples of someone on the left saying something completely contrary to what they said 5 years ago. I think you know that hypocrisy abounds. Singling out Trump-supporting republicans is a really lame spin-job. Not even CNN would insult people's intelligence that brazenly.

And you make it sound like the republican party was this unified ideological force before Trump came alone. It wasn't. Things used to be that Dems represented the working poor and middle class and that repubs were all about deregulation, low taxes, and business growth. That's INVERTED in the last 10-20 years. Trump certainly sped that along, but he wasn't anywhere near the initial development of that trend.

[Mr.Banana]

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

Everyone supports healthcare. Everyone agrees that we need social safety nets for the poor and underprivileged. The problem of stagnant wages is a republican talking point. Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote. LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights. and immigration reform is part of the conservative agenda. The liberals just don't want to have a border. That's not "reform".

[CoccoBill]

You just described every politician every, and just about every member of the ruling class in America.

I can open any media source right now and find a dozen examples of someone on the left saying something completely contrary to what they said 5 years ago. I think you know that hypocrisy abounds. Singling out Trump-supporting republicans is a really lame spin-job. Not even CNN would insult people's intelligence that brazenly.

And you make it sound like the republican party was this unified ideological force before Trump came alone. It wasn't. Things used to be that Dems represented the working poor and middle class and that repubs were all about deregulation, low taxes, and business growth. That's INVERTED in the last 10-20 years. Trump certainly sped that along, but he wasn't anywhere near the initial development of that trend.

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but you might be conflating changing your mind about an issue based on new information with just completely abandoning your core values. I'm sure both happens, within all parties, but the republican support for Trump for the past years reeks quite heavily. See Lindsey Graham's comments about Trump pre election 2016. They hated him but started embracing him because he won.

[CoccoBill]

Everyone supports healthcare.

For themselves yes, not for others.

Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote.

Technically true, they just want to limit who can legally vote and make it extra hard for non-whites.

LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights.

Exactly the kinds of opinions that seem to steer people to the left. And you know damn well I didn't mean a "group" should be given rights, but the members of those groups.

[Mr.Banana]

support for those have been rising steadily.

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

[Mr.Banana]

Technically true, they just want to limit who can legally vote and make it extra hard for non-whites.

Source??

[Poopadoop]

Trump stiffs Rudy lmfao.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/p...use/index.html

[Mr.Banana]

I didn't mean a "group" should be given rights, but the members of those groups.

they already do

this is a myth of the left. The idea that society is patriarchal, or male-dominated, is a farce. it's not real.

and gay people are doing just fine too. I used to fall for that trick. "love is love man" and "If they want to get married they should be able to". yeah, ok fine. But then what happened? Suddenly all these Christians are asked to bake cakes, or host gay weddings in their churches. And it's not like gay people seem value marriage anyway. Open relationships and multi-way sexual encounters are far far more prevalent in the gay community. So why do they want to get married in the first place?

I have nothing against homosexuality. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

[Mr.Banana]

Trump stiffs Rudy lmfao.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/p...use/index.html

You shouldn't be allowed to criticize trump for anything that you could have or should have predicted BEFORE he ran for office.

Everyone knows he's shafted vendors. Rudy should have got the retainer up front.

[Poopadoop]

But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

I lol'd.

[Poopadoop]

You shouldn't be allowed to criticize trump for anything that you could have or should have predicted BEFORE he ran for office.

More lols.

banana you're on fire right now. Keep it comin'

[Mr.Banana]

banana you're on fire right now. Keep it comin'

Ask me somethin

[CoccoBill]

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

Without realizing it, you've hit the nail here. People very rarely, especially on the societal level, change their convictions. Usually what happens is the younger generations disagree with them, partly I'm sure of just spite and teen rebellion, but also because they have a vastly updated set of information to digest in their formative years. People generally learn new stuff in their youth, and hold on to those beliefs till they die.

The daughter and son in your examples demonstrate this exact effect, causing some change in behavior immediately, which overtakes when the parents croak. Progress.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

Holy what the shit?

[CoccoBill]

they already do

this is a myth of the left. The idea that society is patriarchal, or male-dominated, is a farce. it's not real.

and gay people are doing just fine too. I used to fall for that trick.

Well argued.

"love is love man" and "If they want to get married they should be able to". yeah, ok fine. But then what happened? Suddenly all these Christians are asked to bake cakes, or host gay weddings in their churches.

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry? I think you're increasingly in the minority. 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 a gay wedding cakes, but any public office/representative should absolutely not practice any of it.

And it's not like gay people seem value marriage anyway. Open relationships and multi-way sexual encounters are far far more prevalent in the gay community. So why do they want to get married in the first place?

Whether and how many of them actually want to exercise a basic right has nothing to do with whether they should have it.

I have nothing against homosexuality. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

I have nothing against Christians. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "religion" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass homosexuals.

[CoccoBill]

Source??

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/29...nority-voting/

[OngBonga]

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry?

I'm not sure there's all that many people who think this. However, forcing Christians to allow homosexuals to marry in a Christian environment is a different matter. You can't stop here, can you? You're also saying that Muslims must allow homosexuals to marry is a mosque, if they so choose. But now we get into dangerous territory where we're criticising Muslims, not Christians.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not sure there's all that many people who think this. However, forcing Christians to allow homosexuals to marry in a Christian environment is a different matter. You can't stop here, can you? You're also saying that Muslims must allow homosexuals to marry is a mosque, if they so choose. But now we get into dangerous territory where we're criticising Muslims, not Christians.

But am I? If you read the whole paragraph I wasn't even saying that, I was asking a question. What I was saying is the rest of the paragraph starting with IMO.

I don't personally like the fact that homosexuals are discriminated against, no matter what ideology or religion the person follows. Ideally there would be no organized religions, as I've said many times before, but they don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

[OngBonga]

Fair enough. I agree homosexuals should not be discriminated against, and personally I would put the rights of homosexuals ahead of the rights of people who believe in the tooth fairy. But I hold religion in contempt.

But the point remains that anyone who insists homosexuals must be allowed to marry in churches must remain morally consistent and insist they are also allowed to marry in mosques, or any other religious building that usually hosts weddings. That moral consistency doesn't exist though. People are afraid to criticise Muslims for fear of being branded "racist", despite Islam not being a race.

I criticise Islam more than Christianity, largely because of homosexuality. Christians are far from perfect on this matter, but overall they're more progressive than Muslims.

[Mr.Banana]

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry?

Huh? Gays can get married without harassing Christians. If a Christian doesn't want to bake your cake, just go to another baker. Live and let live.

[Mr.Banana]

All I'm saying is that they clearly are not into monogamy. And there aren't really that many of them adopting kids. there is no such thing as a tax benefit for getting married. That's a myth. Married people are treated differently under the tax code, but that's because the tax code was written when women didn't work. There are tax mechanisms that fairly treat a couple with disparate levels of income. It actually works the opposite when both spouses make close to the same money. Married gays pay more taxes than unmarried gays. The "marriage penalty" is actually a problem for straight people too.

The only other thing marriage gets you is that you're first in line for probate, and you get to be the one deciding to unplug your partner from life support. Both of those things can be solved on legalzoom.com for $89.99

So I'm just not understanding WHY gay people want to get married. But if it helps them feel more accepted, and helps them assimilate socially with ease...then fine. Get married. But why aggravate the church people? Just go to the next cake shop, jeezus

[CoccoBill]

All I'm saying is that they clearly are not into monogamy. And there aren't really that many of them adopting kids. there is no such thing as a tax benefit for getting married. That's a myth. Married people are treated differently under the tax code, but that's because the tax code was written when women didn't work. There are tax mechanisms that fairly treat a couple with disparate levels of income. It actually works the opposite when both spouses make close to the same money. Married gays pay more taxes than unmarried gays. The "marriage penalty" is actually a problem for straight people too.

The only other thing marriage gets you is that you're first in line for probate, and you get to be the one deciding to unplug your partner from life support. Both of those things can be solved on legalzoom.com for $89.99

So I'm just not understanding WHY gay people want to get married. But if it helps them feel more accepted, and helps them assimilate socially with ease...then fine. Get married. But why aggravate the church people? Just go to the next cake shop, jeezus

Let me try if I'm able to explain how I see this. Imagine you're at the supermarket and decide to pick up some apples. The cashier asks you whether you're left- or right-handed. You look puzzled, and say you're left-handed. The cashier says "Um right, we only sell these to right-handed folks." You feel confused and think that's completely idiotic, why should your handedness matter? If that happens once, you probably just laugh it off and think what an idiot, and move on with your life. Water off a duck's back. But now imagine the same happens every time, at every grocery store, all your life. And not just with apples at supermarkets, but with several things, all the time, everywhere. People sneer at you when they hear you're left-handed, some might even throw some slurs. You've done nothing wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it (except lie and hide the fact). Eventually, one might understandably get pissed off or worse, depressed. And we're still nowhere near what they have been going through for years, from bashing to ridicule to violence.

Having those rights shouldn't need justification or reason, having those rights should be the default. Not ever having had to deal with those things, and not being able to understand how much even those small things can do damage to a person over time, is privilege. Wanting to get rid of all of them, even the small things, is to me completely understandable.

[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.

[Mr.Banana]

. Not ever having had to deal with those things, and not being able to understand how much even those small things can do damage to a person over time, is privilege.

This is exactly what's wrong with the world right now. This is the neo-marxist fallacy

Everyone has problems. Everyone. Saying gay people's problems, or black people's problems, or women's problems are somehow more or less important than other people's problems.....is a problem.

[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.

[CoccoBill]

This is exactly what's wrong with the world right now. This is the neo-marxist fallacy

Everyone has problems. Everyone. Saying gay people's problems, or black people's problems, or women's problems are somehow more or less important than other people's problems.....is a problem.

Could you point to the exact spot where someone said that?

[Mr.Banana]

Could you point to the exact spot where someone said that?

You're just dodging now. Not having a real discussion. Explicit or implied, the overriding theme of your last few posts is that gay people have special problems the rest of us "privileged" people don't have to deal with. And because of that, they deserve special treatment.

Fuck that philosophy.

[CoccoBill]

You're just dodging now. Not having a real discussion. Explicit or implied, the overriding theme of your last few posts is that gay people have special problems the rest of us "privileged" people don't have to deal with. And because of that, they deserve special treatment.

Fuck that philosophy.

No one's said anything about their problems being "special". I just tried to explain why they are problems, since you keep belittling them, and clearly don't understand them. No one's asking for special treatment for them, but literally the exact same treatment as for everyone else.

Fuck your philosophy.

[Mr.Banana]

No one's said anything about their problems being "special". I just tried to explain why they are problems, since you keep belittling them, and clearly don't understand them. No one's asking for special treatment for them, but literally the exact same treatment as for everyone else.

Fuck your philosophy.

now you're backpedaling. Everything you deny saying is exactly what you meant when you said the word "privileged". Right there you're ranking/prioritizing people's problems by which marginalized group they belong to.

Just say what you believe man. If it's neo-marxism, so be it.

[Mr.Banana]

No one's asking for special treatment for them, but literally the exact same treatment as for everyone else.

If this was true, you wouldn't be mad at the Christian baker, because he is actually giving gays the same treatment he gives everyone else.

He won't make Halloween cakes because Pagan holidays are not part of his religious beliefs.

No one complained about that. Where's the march for Pagan rights? Somehow it's only the politically useful coalitions that get to be "non-privileged" and they DO get "special treatment"

[CoccoBill]

now you're backpedaling. Everything you deny saying is exactly what you meant when you said the word "privileged". Right there you're ranking/prioritizing people's problems by which marginalized group they belong to.

Just say what you believe man. If it's neo-marxism, so be it.

I think I know better what I meant, which was exactly what I said. It is a privilege to lead a life where you're not discriminated against for anything you are. It's not my problem if the word privilege triggers you.

[CoccoBill]

If this was true, you wouldn't be mad at the Christian baker, because he is actually giving gays the same treatment he gives everyone else.

He won't make Halloween cakes because Pagan holidays are not part of his religious beliefs.

So because on top of discriminating against gays he's also discriminating against pagans, that makes him not discriminatory at all? Want to spend a minute more thinking about that?

No one complained about that. Where's the march for Pagan rights? Somehow it's only the politically useful coalitions that get to be "non-privileged" and they DO get "special treatment"

Pagan rights should be the same as christian rights, aka none. If you feel the issue is close to your heart, go ahead and do something about it.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Mr.Banana]

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

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

The first amendment guarantees those rights. they're inalienable. No law can be passed that infringes on that right.

So if you're argument is that the proper amount of rights for Christians is "none" then you're not even thinking intelligently about the subject.

[Mr.Banana]

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

For the most part, yes

[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.

[CoccoBill]

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

The first amendment guarantees those rights. they're inalienable. No law can be passed that infringes on that right.

So if you're argument is that the proper amount of rights for Christians is "none" then you're not even thinking intelligently about the subject.

I could care far more about the US constitution and the amendments. We were talking about civil liberties in general, and what kind of changes people seem to want in them over there. It is as if you're purposefully trying to misconstrue everything I say, and it's starting to get old. Christians should not have rights. Pagans should not have rights. Humans should have rights.

[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.

[Poopadoop]

Really?

Yes, really. Using some of the same words the other person used and then adding others to change the overall meaning is pretty much the dictionary definition of reductio ad bananum, aka twisting someone's words.

It might work on people who aren't paying attention or have the intelligence of a six year old, but to anyone else it just makes it obvious you are not arguing in good faith.

[Mr.Banana]

Christians should not have rights.

The rules say otherwise. Arguing about what "should" be is dumb. You have to accept what is.

[Poopadoop]

It is as if you're purposefully trying to misconstrue everything I say,

I agree, except for the "as if" part.

....and it's starting to get old.

There's a reason why it's called reductio ad bananum and not reductio ad something else. It's a pattern of discourse with him, and it's present in nearly all of his "debates" with others here.

If you say "I believe x," he asks you how you can believe "y", you say 'no, i said x', and he goes on to tell you why you're wrong to believe "z".

[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]

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.

In that case, Trump should have got a lot done in those four years he had. I suppose you need to add in that you can't spend hours a day watching cable news shows, shit-posting on twitter, and playing golf.

[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]

I could care far more about the US constitution and the amendments. We were talking about civil liberties in general, and what kind of changes people seem to want in them over there.

"seem to want"? What does that even mean? Is that just what the loudest media voices are saying? Or do you have some data here?

And frankly, "wanting" something isn't good enough. Most people WANT to live in a world where no one denies the holocaust. But we can't make that a law because the rules guarantee freedom of speech.

So it's nice that gays WANT to buy that cake. But the baker's rights are actually in the constitution.

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.

[CoccoBill]

There's a reason why it's called reductio ad bananum and not reductio ad something else. It's a pattern of discourse with him, and it's present in nearly all of his "debates" with others here.

If you say "I believe x," he asks you how you can believe "y", you say 'no, i said x', and he goes on to tell you why you're wrong to believe "z".

Yeah I remember all too well. Decided to naively give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's right back to his old ways after he realized he's getting his ass kicked on substance. I guess this is his way of trying to regain his self esteem.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Poopadoop]

Why?

Never mind. Carry on.

[Mr.Banana]

Never mind. Carry on.

Alright man. But I'm not sure what I said that you found so stunning.

All I did was say what happened.

I'm in a country that proclaims to be a democracy, and guarantees both freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Yet at the same time tiny-tyrants in governor's offices across the country have decreed, with the stroke of a pen, that church can't happen anymore.....cuz covid.

You don't see a problem with that?

[Poopadoop]

You don't see a problem with that?

Nope. The Bible talks about the Four Horsemen, it doesn't say that when one of them comes along you must go to a public space and spread it amongst your brethren.

Pray in your fucking house, idiots.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[CoccoBill]

Lol, he's made the exact same mistake.

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

No, the mistake was taking you seriously.

[Mr.Banana]

No, the mistake was taking you seriously.

"shut up" he explained

[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?