*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

Everyone supports healthcare.

---

For themselves yes, not for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

---

Source??

Trump stiffs Rudy lmfao.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

Ask me somethin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

Source??

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

. 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

---

For the most part, yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banana

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

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

---

Judges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

For the most part, yes

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Christians should not have rights.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

....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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol gold.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

Why?

---

Never mind. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

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?

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.

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?

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

No, the mistake was taking you seriously.

---

"shut up" he explained

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Exactly which sentence did I spin?

Also, the supreme court agrees with me.

Just sayin'

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?

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?

FWIW, your argument about art is a good one.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Yes it is.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

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.

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.

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


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


The article concludes...

Quote:

---

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"?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

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

This could happen to you

It could happen to anyone.

Bill yesterday.....post 8436

Quote:

---

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

---

Bill yesterday again....post 8446

Quote:

---

Christians should not have rights.

---

Bill today....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

---

I'm in fucking clown world

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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....

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

---

Then bill says....

Quote:

---

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

Post 8493 kind of says it all I think

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

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

---

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Banana

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

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

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

---

Same questions for Monkeyman