51% Of American Muslims Want Sharia... (NOT in All Caps Now..)

[Pumpkin Row]

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

If you were, you'd have understood what I was saying and agreed. You didn't even bother to read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

If you were, you'd have understood what I was saying and agreed. You didn't even bother to read.

Your statement is definitive. and wrong. If you retracted it later and admitted it was wrong, good for you. If not, you're an idiot.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

If you were, you'd have understood what I was saying and agreed. You didn't even bother to read.

Your statement is definitive. and wrong. If you retracted it later and admitted it was wrong, good for you. If not, you're an idiot.

The fact that you still think it's wrong only goes to show that you never read my link or my explanation. Pretty sure you're also the person that called our country a Democracy, so you have no grounds to call anyone an idiot.

 

[Seawytch]

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

No, you said they could LIE. That's not the same as what you originally claimed which is that they had the RIGHT to deny service. You were wrong, proven wrong and then switched your story.


You can lie to the cops about how fast you were going too, you still sped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

If you were, you'd have understood what I was saying and agreed. You didn't even bother to read.

Your statement is definitive. and wrong. If you retracted it later and admitted it was wrong, good for you. If not, you're an idiot.

The fact that you still think it's wrong only goes to show that you never read my link or my explanation. Pretty sure you're also the person that called our country a Democracy, so you have no grounds to call anyone an idiot.

I've not just read it, I often link to it when someone says something stupid like "a business owner has the right to refuse service at any time for any reason"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I read just fine. Apparently you don't remember what you typed. Here, I'll quote it with links.

Pumpkin: Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. That's not circumventing the constitution, that's you apparently not knowing what Constitutional rights are. Nobody has a right to force a business to serve them. If they refuse you, go to their competitor.

That was the first time you were mistaken. When you were called out on it multiple times you came back with more mistaken-ness.

Pumpkin: That can, so long as they aren't owned by the government. In some cases, they're not allowed to tell you what that reason is, but they ARE allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They usually don't, because they'd lose customers to their competitors, but they're allowed.

Which is you being more wrong and attempting to cover up how wrong you were by saying businesses can lie.

No need for you to admit you were wrong, we can all see it and even link to the originals.

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

No, you said they could LIE. That's not the same as what you originally claimed which is that they had the RIGHT to deny service. You were wrong, proven wrong and then switched your story.


You can lie to the cops about how fast you were going too, you still sped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's completely different, and what I did was elaborate on what I said.

 

[Seawytch]

The Pumpkin has apparently never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I literally just explained why that doesn't mean they can't refuse service to the types of people listed in said act. You should learn to read. As should SeaWytch. The link I gave earlier explains in detail why they can refuse said people, and what that act means to businesses. Your constant ignorance is actually painful.

So you're denying you ever said this?

: "Businesses have a right to refuse business to anyone for any reason."

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

No, you said they could LIE. That's not the same as what you originally claimed which is that they had the RIGHT to deny service. You were wrong, proven wrong and then switched your story.


You can lie to the cops about how fast you were going too, you still sped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's completely different, and what I did was elaborate on what I said.

No, you amended your incorrect statement because you can't admit you were wrong. You were as proven by your own link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

Pumpkin Row,


You never answered my question....these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

No, I explained why they can, you just didn't read my posts.

I don't have to read any explanation. Your statement is false. You are wrong.

Spoken like a true Liberal, too close-minded to let themselves be educated. This is the exact reason Liberals even exist.

I'm already educated on the subject. You need to grow up.

If you were, you'd have understood what I was saying and agreed. You didn't even bother to read.

Your statement is definitive. and wrong. If you retracted it later and admitted it was wrong, good for you. If not, you're an idiot.

why is "no shirt, no shoes, no service" OK and "no muslims in burkas" not OK?

 

[FA_Q2]

Pumpkin Row,


You never answered my question....these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have asked this several times but the question itself is rather dishonest in general. There are no hard rules to faith and you certainly do not define others faith for them. That is no less bigoted than those demanding to tell you how to live or what is 'right and wrong' according to their beliefs rather than yours.

 

[Seawytch]

Pumpkin Row,


You never answered my question....these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have asked this several times but the question itself is rather dishonest in general. There are no hard rules to faith and you certainly do not define others faith for them. That is no less bigoted than those demanding to tell you how to live or what is 'right and wrong' according to their beliefs rather than yours.

You should really follow along in the thread and read all the posts, not just the most recent one. In the context of the conversation it was a very valid question...which is why Pumpkin Spice refuses to answer it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pumpkin Row,


You never answered my question....these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have asked this several times but the question itself is rather dishonest in general. There are no hard rules to faith and you certainly do not define others faith for them. That is no less bigoted than those demanding to tell you how to live or what is 'right and wrong' according to their beliefs rather than yours.

You should really follow along in the thread and read all the posts, not just the most recent one. In the context of the conversation it was a very valid question...which is why Pumpkin Spice refuses to answer it.

I have read the thread. It does not change anything that I said. You are trying to frame another's faith with your understanding.

Do you not see how fruitless that practice is?