Trump Regime thread.

[blotsfan 2,112]

If they want a cake that says "Black Power" and the store owner is white, yes, its valid.

 

There's a difference between a call to violence (which its debatable whether black power qualifies as that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) and "Congratulations Tom and Bill!"

 

If the cake said "Congratulations Tom and Bill! Your sodomistic 'marriage' is another dagger in the souls of all good Christians in the United States of America. Hail Satan!" I could see your point better.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

My argument for that is to favor the business owner. Not because what I think they are doing is right, but because I think their poor decisions will in the long run hurt their business. If I am looking for a cake or other baked good to be made, and I've heard that Bakery A is homophobic.. I am not going there and I am telling other people not to go there.Likewise though, I will also not give my business to people who hate Christians (if they are open about it like that anyway). Knowingly sponsoring hate, regardless of who that hate is directed at shouldn't be accepted. So, in a way, I think responsibility falls onto the consumers.

 

In both situations, as a business owner, I think you have that right -- but I think it's incredibly stupid. "Gay" money or "God" money makes no difference to me... Then again, I am not a small business owner, so what do I know?

 

As a small business owner, I can tell you, that you are correct. It does not take long for it to make the rounds that you dont like whatever group it is you dont like. Something I have noticed, especially with the gay versus Christian thing, is that those business's actually tend to do ok when they discriminate against gay people. Christians will come out in droves to support those business's. Ironically enough there is another bakery here in washington who did that on a small scale. They just made breakfast pastries and panini's, but they did the same thing and sunday at about 11:00 they make massive amounts of money.

 

I am sure business's that are run/operated by gay people also have that same thing within their community and I have no issue with it. I think that you are definitely right though, I have done jobs for several gay business owners, including one that sold man bags for gay men, and the money on the check cleared so it was like any other job.

[blotsfan 2,112]

If it means the end of the DNC then it's DEFINITELY a good thing. I hope a bunch of big democrat power brokers go down and go down hard. This is NEEDED.

 

I would love a shakeup of the DNC to move to the left, but I'm just not comfortable at how many people will suffer until the party is reestablished. Especially since its asking others to be doing the suffering.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

There's a difference between a call to violence (which its debatable whether black power qualifies as that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) and "Congratulations Tom and Bill!"

 

If the cake said "Congratulations Tom and Bill! Your sodomistic 'marriage' is another dagger in the souls of all good Christians in the United States of America. Hail Satan!" I could see your point better.

 

Well in this case it was David and Charlie, just in case you cared. That said, the point was it would be an affront to a white person, at the very core of who they are to do something like that. If you are religious being gay is pretty high up their as far as things you dont want to be or associate with, so I mean, for Christians, it is a big deal. Why cant they have that ?

[blotsfan 2,112]

My argument for that is to favor the business owner. Not because what I think they are doing is right, but because I think their poor decisions will in the long run hurt their business. If I am looking for a cake or other baked good to be made, and I've heard that Bakery A is homophobic.. I am not going there and I am telling other people not to go there.Likewise though, I will also not give my business to people who hate Christians (if they are open about it like that anyway). Knowingly sponsoring hate, regardless of who that hate is directed at shouldn't be accepted. So, in a way, I think responsibility falls onto the consumers.

 

In both situations, as a business owner, I think you have that right -- but I think it's incredibly stupid. "Gay" money or "God" money makes no difference to me... Then again, I am not a small business owner, so what do I know?

 

What if theres a small town where theres not many gay people and most of the town is homophobic? Should it just be "gay people effectively can't live here"?

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

I would love a shakeup of the DNC to move to the left, but I'm just not comfortable at how many people will suffer until the party is reestablished. Especially since its asking others to be doing the suffering.

It has to happen for there to ever be change in the politics of this country. Honestly if the DNC just blows up and a new party is established it could make this change we've wanted come faster than we had hoped. The DNC is doing more to sabotage progressive candidates than the GOP is right now and it has to stop.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

We were supposed to get 30,000+ either new or previously redacted files on JFK. The CIA and FBI has pushed Trump to have many of them remain a secret due to concerns over national security... So we are getting less than 3,000 documents instead while the others get reviewed. Lol. What a joke.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

That surprises me. I mean, let's just say there was a conspiracy and the government took out JFK. Does anyone actually think those files would see the light of day? If they ever existed, they're long gone.

[blotsfan 2,112]

They gotta finish replacing every instance of "Lee Harvey Oswald" with "Ted Cruz's dad."

[Thanatos 2,847]

If this is truly a thing, if Christians really are doing this because its against their beliefs to serve a gay person, why have I never heard of an obese person being told at a Christian store they can't have a big cake or three double cheeseburgers, or what have you? Where's that court case?

 

There are plenty of sins mentioned in the Bible, why is it only homosexuals that Christians have a problem with serving?

 

As far as "They can just go to another place of business" that's fine in big cities. What about in rural Montana, or the middle of Oklahoma, where perhaps there is only one barber shop in town? Are they supposed to drive two hours to get a haircut? What do you do about that?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

If this is truly a thing, if Christians really are doing this because its against their beliefs to serve a gay person, why have I never heard of an obese person being told at a Christian store they can't have a big cake or three double cheeseburgers, or what have you? Where's that court case?

 

There are plenty of sins mentioned in the Bible, why is it only homosexuals that Christians have a problem with serving?

 

As far as "They can just go to another place of business" that's fine in big cities. What about in rural Montana, or the middle of Oklahoma, where perhaps there is only one barber shop in town? Are they supposed to drive two hours to get a haircut? What do you do about that?

There is a lot there to be explained, so bear with me.

 

I don't think it is so much serving gay people in general, as you're later example of a barbershop I don't see as Apples to Apples. I understand the point you're trying to make, and I also understand the complexities of trying to draw lines where there is no clear definition or president that states what you have to do and what you don't have to do as a business owner, and how much control you have over that. That being said cutting a gay person's hair, is not exactly taking part in the union of a man and a man which is what he was against.

 

As far as Christians just starting this, has actually been going on for a while. There are several cases if you choose to look them up. This particular guy, however, does not just make it against gay people. If you watch what he has to say about the subject matter, he also makes clear that he refuses to do any sort of Halloween celebrations, because of the Demonic aspect of the holiday. He also turns down several other cakes, that he believes go against his Christian ideals. So this man has actually been doing this for a while, and it is not just the gay couple.

 

I do understand that gay people should have the exact same rights as everybody else, and this is where the gray area comes in for me. If you have two opposing people that have two opposing ideological standpoints, and they stand is a paradigm to each other, what do you do. Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong, much to the credit of this thread, that has already been covered. There is one group of people who say you have to side with the gays because that is what you should do from a humanitarian, and social activist standpoint, but is it correct. You have another group of people who say that Christians should have the rights respected just like everybody else, and to force a Christian to do this would be violating his rights. I can see both arguments crystal clear. To say there is one clear solution to this would not be doing this issue any justice.

 

I have stated my position in this thread, which to reiterate, is that I would have to side with the store owner on this one. I have already stated why I would in a roundabout way, but to be briefed about this I believe that he's a true Christian, and that his ideals do dictate to him who he can and cannot serve. From what I have read, he was more than Army novel to make anything else they want it, he just would not bless off on the union of two men. Considering his ideals, and how he convey those to those people, I really cannot fault him for not doing it. It is something that he believes strongly in and for someone to a friendship on that would set a dangerous precedent, basically saying that one faction is better than Christians. It is also not lost on me that this happened in Metropolis, and somebody from say Stillwater Oklahoma may not have the exact same methods of recourse that this couple may have. This couple lives in Denver Colorado, a quick Google search reveals there over 60 different cake shops and bakeries within just Denver alone, without having to go into any other sub areas.

 

What really gets me about this, is listening to the gay couple and the store owner talk. I know this is going to hurt some people's feelings, but I actually believe that the store owner was a genuine man of principle, strong in his faith in the Christian ideals. Now whether or not you agree with said he's irrelevant, what is relevant, is that he believes in them. The gay couple to me seems is kind of a pushy couple, that is just trying to get this man to bend to their will, because they can. Or at least now they can, which brings me to another part of your question.

 

You may not have heard as much about this, because up until recently gay people were treated as second-class Citizens, and that is sad. I'm glad that they are finding their places in society, and for the most part they are being welcomed with open arms. There's always going to be some resistance from those who believe it is a sin, but most Christians I have talked to her actually making an effort to judge the sin not the sinner. There are some religious zealots out there that are definitely taking it way overboard, but most typical Christians that I have met think it is a sin, but as the Bible says you have to hate the sin not the sinner.

 

This really is summed up by the question I posed earlier. If you make it judgement either way, you are infringing on somebody's rights, now how would you justify that? Is it the one you were making do something against their will, or is it the one group of people that can go elsewhere in this situation?

Edited October 27, 2017 by Omerta

[blotsfan 2,112]

Ngata, what if it's a gay wedding party all getting their hair done together? Then would the barber be allowed to tell them no?

 

And again, you haven't clarified why it was ok to force white people to serve black people against their will, but it isn't ok for gay people.

Edited October 27, 2017 by blotsfan

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ngata, what if it's a gay wedding party all getting their hair done together? Then would the barber be allowed to tell them no?

And again, you haven't clarified why it was ok to force white people to serve black people against their will, but it isn't ok for gay people.

If it is for their wedding, and the barber is a religious man then yes I don't think you should have to participate. I think you should have to cut their hair every other day of the week, but if it's participating in something that the Bible considers to be his send that I don't think we should force Christians to do it.

 

I didn't clarify, because you gave me an extremely stupid example, that wasn't Apples to Apples. However, to answer the question of why would not be okay for white people to say they're not going to serve blacks, the answer is very simple. Being black is not a sin. I don't know any white people who consider it to be a sin. And this example, one group of people think what the other are people doing is a sin, something that they can be sentenced to Eternal damnation for. Being black, is not a sin, simple as that.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Omerta

[blotsfan 2,112]

I didn't clarify, because you gave me an extremely stupid example, that wasn't Apples to Apples. However, to answer the question of why would not be okay for white people to say they're not going to serve blacks, the answer is very simple. Being black is not a sin. I don't know any white people who consider it to be a sin. And this example, one group of people think what the other are people doing is a sin, something that they can be sentenced to Eternal damnation for. Being black, is not a sin, simple as that.

What if you're a Mormon pre-retcon?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

What if you're a Mormon pre-retcon?

Oh, give me a break. Are you going to sit here and try to argue the confounding variable all goddamn day? What if he was the fucking Hamburglar ?

[blotsfan 2,112]

My point is that religion can be whatever you want it to be. If I have a religion that genuinely says black people are inherently evil and can't be trusted, who are you to tell me that's fake? If serving a black person goes against my religious beliefs, then why should I be forced to?

 

Edit: and the Mormon thing was because they genuinely believed that about black people.

Edited October 27, 2017 by blotsfan

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Yes they did. They no longer do.

 

And you're changing the question you asked me, it is no longer can a white man survive a black man. You have changed the Kindle white Mormon serve a black man. That has nothing to do with being white, and everything to do with being Mormon. So once again and, you were changing your initial question.

 

Now to answer the inevitable question should a pre reconstruction Mormon have to serve a black man, and the answer is yes. Number one that religion is now defunct, Mormons have already came out and is about that rule. We cannot change the history of what Young did, but the wrong has been written by the church itself and now allows black people into the priesthood. So, back in that her a big black was still not as soon as you claim it was. They were not allowed into the priesthood, which was still wrong no doubt about it, but being black was not a sin.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Fine. My new religion Blotsfanism says that black people are inferior and serving them in any way is sinful. I now genuinely believe this. Can I be told that I have to serve them regardless of my deeply held religious beliefs?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Ngata you're not thinking of the possible consequences here.

 

Blots example is extreme, but its to prove a point. You can't discriminate on some arbitrary basis that the other person has zero control over.

 

I happen to agree with you, that in this particular case these two people were simply trying to stir something up. Hell, I think the ACLU even admitted they were trying to make a test case with one of these things, not sure if it was this one or not.

 

But if you're going to make it ok to discriminate against gay people because of your religion, you have just opened a huge can of worms. If the KKK organizes and declares they are now a religion, are they then allowed to mass discriminate against black people? Why do religions get a special pass here? Why are they allowed to do this because of religious reasons, whereas maybe someone who just really doesn't like gays isn't allowed to do the same thing?

 

I'm not saying, btw, that Christians have just started it. I am saying that the vast majority of the outrage is directed solely at homosexuality. No one has, to my knowledge, refused to serve an obese person because they didn't want to support their gluttony. While you brought up the Halloween thing, that is the only case I have heard of where that was a thing- and that's quite a different issue, because you're not celebrating the holiday at all. You're not discriminating against any one group in particular, you just don't do Halloween. An apples to apples comparison would be a baker who refuses to do wedding cakes at all, because he doesn't do weddings. It's entirely different to single out a group of people for whom you won't perform a specific service.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

Btw, I have been consistently getting emails from whitehouse.gov asking me to take polls.

 

For fun, I took this one. It only had one question.

 

Trump's job performance has been...?

 

1) Great

2) Good

3) Okay

4) Other

 

And that's it! He wouldn't even put an outright negative option in the poll! And then after you take the thing, it redirects to a page with the following message:

 

Thank you for adding your opinion. Now take the next step.

The mainstream media have made it their mission to take down President Trump.

We need the resources to fight back every step of the way.

Please make a contribution to defend our movement from nasty, fake attacks.

 

Nasty fake attacks, lmao. The man is becoming Gollum.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

Why are you on that mailing list?

 

 

And back to what we were talking about, this was 100% a planned test case. So was Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. It'll be good to have it enshrined into precedent, if not law.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

What is the solution though?

Is forcing a bigoted business owner to take business really punishing them? You MUST let gays support your business and pay the bills for you, your family,and any employees you may have!

Wow... How dreadful. Let the business owners decide who they want to serve and make them feel the real consequences of those decisions.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Wow... How dreadful. Let the business owners decide who they want to serve and make them feel the real consequences of those decisions.

And when every establishment in town feels the same way like in the Jim crow south, that's cool?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

And when every establishment in town feels the same way like in the Jim crow south, that's cool?

 

Not gonna happen.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ngata you're not thinking of the possible consequences here.

 

Blots example is extreme, but its to prove a point. You can't discriminate on some arbitrary basis that the other person has zero control over.

 

I happen to agree with you, that in this particular case these two people were simply trying to stir something up. Hell, I think the ACLU even admitted they were trying to make a test case with one of these things, not sure if it was this one or not.

 

But if you're going to make it ok to discriminate against gay people because of your religion, you have just opened a huge can of worms. If the KKK organizes and declares they are now a religion, are they then allowed to mass discriminate against black people? Why do religions get a special pass here? Why are they allowed to do this because of religious reasons, whereas maybe someone who just really doesn't like gays isn't allowed to do the same thing?

 

I'm not saying, btw, that Christians have just started it. I am saying that the vast majority of the outrage is directed solely at homosexuality. No one has, to my knowledge, refused to serve an obese person because they didn't want to support their gluttony. While you brought up the Halloween thing, that is the only case I have heard of where that was a thing- and that's quite a different issue, because you're not celebrating the holiday at all. You're not discriminating against any one group in particular, you just don't do Halloween. An apples to apples comparison would be a baker who refuses to do wedding cakes at all, because he doesn't do weddings. It's entirely different to single out a group of people for whom you won't perform a specific service.

I understand the consequences, I think we both do. I just think we're arguing for opposing sides. Not necessarily opposing sides, but I think we are seeing it through the lens of the opposite perspective. I don't think we will disagree that gay people should have all the same rights that straight people do.

 

What I am saying is take your exact same argument for gay people, and look at it to the lens of a Christian. What happens? Nothing, they are essentially the same thing. How do you decide which group to protect? Do you tell Christians oh sorry, we wish we could take what you believe seriously, but we just can't get there. Or do you tell gays, hey sorry I don't agree with your lifestyle that's I'm not serving you. In the end you have done the same thing you have just done it to opposing parties.

 

I don't think there is a clear answer here, but to say that he must side with the gay people, is completely ignoring the fact that you would be doing the exact same thing that you were chastising the office at 4 if you were to tell Christians you have to do this. What if you said gay people have to go somewhere else to do something? Is it really not the same thing here?