School Board Member Outraged over Patriotic T Shirts

[Bob Blaylock]

Todd Starnes is a lying liar. Period....he shows that some christians will lie thru their teeth at the drop of a hat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Everything Todd Starnes says is a lie.

....and everything Todd Starnes says is a lie.

As I said...Todd Starnes is nothing but a liar.

Todd Starnes is a lying liar. Period....he shows that some christians will lie thru their teeth at the drop of a hat.

It seems to be one of the defining traits of modern LIbEralism—to persist in falsely accusing one's opposition of one's own vices. We don't usually see it being done this blatantly, and unabashedly, but in more subtle forms, it seems to always be there.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Then someone should run against her. I'm sure nobody will, though, because it's easier just to bitch about a problem than actually work to fix it.

 

[BS Filter]

I see your problem, you need it explained with pictures.

T-shirts cause controversy in Dodge County

I saw it....and everything Todd Starnes says is a lie.


BTW...where are all those con-servatives who were outraged over the altering of the American flag when Former President Obama was in office?

Just saying something ignorant like "everything Todd Starnes says is a lie" doesn't mean a thing unless you can prove it. You probably meant to say that "I disagree with everything Todd Starnes says". That would be more like it.

Why Is Fox News Not Concerned About Todd Starnes? - The Atlantic



Todd Starnes Sold Us a War on Christianity. We Bought It.

Fox's Todd Starnes Will Lie Until The Very End About San Antonio's Proposed Non-Discrimination Law

I myself fact checked one of his lies on Hannity many years ago....when he was complaining that a CA 7th grade Soc St textbook only taught about Islam...he held the book up...it was the same textbook my daughter was using in her school at that time. I looked thru it. One unit (3 chapters on the Islamic empires....5 Units with at least 11 chapters on Christianity and christian empires such as Roman Catholic Europe, the Byzantines, etc.

As I said...Todd Starnes is nothing but a liar.

Oh, so you have one issue. That's hardly "everything".

You weren't paying attention...that was the one I PERSONALLY experienced....the links show many others. Todd Starnes is a lying liar. Period....he shows that some christians will lie thru their teeth at the drop of a hat.

Yes, some people will lie. So?

 

[BS Filter]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

No, not every citizen has to agree. I can wear a T shirt that says " Everyone thinks I'm smart and handsome". It's called free speech.

 

[saveliberty]

I saw it....and everything Todd Starnes says is a lie.


BTW...where are all those con-servatives who were outraged over the altering of the American flag when Former President Obama was in office?

You mean you refuse to accept the truth as it doesn't fit your point of view.

 

[Lysistrata]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

 

[SweetSue92]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

 

[Lysistrata]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

 

[Slyhunter]

Then someone should run against her. I'm sure nobody will, though, because it's easier just to bitch about a problem than actually work to fix it.

Most people are too busy earning a living.

 

[Slyhunter]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

 

[Lysistrata]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

 

[Slyhunter]

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

 

[Hiryuu]

Americans ought to be deeply concerned that we are allowing such Godless, anti-American filth to be in charge of our children.

Which god?

Shiva

Innana

 

[Lysistrata]

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

 

[BS Filter]

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

 

[Lysistrata]

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

 

[BS Filter]

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact. At least be honest about your own prejudice against Christianity.

 

[Slyhunter]

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

You only want to talk about religion when it's anti-christian. You are prejudiced against the christian religion.

 

[Lysistrata]

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.