Marine Vet Told to Leave Six Flags in NJ Due to Patriotic T-Shirt

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder if they would have let him in if he asked for a queer wedding cake......

Do grow up please. TY.

And do tell, what exactly is gayer than a wedding cake in the first place? Just the thought of on has me looking for the bar...

 

[Ibentoken]

I wonder if they would have let him in if he asked for a queer wedding cake......

Do grow up please. TY.

And do tell, what exactly is gayer than a wedding cake in the first place? Just the thought of on has me looking for the bar...

I didn't expect you to get it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have a completely arbitrary standard, I have a clear one. So if government can force them to do business with the guy with the gay t-shirt, why should they not force them to do business with someone who is legally dressed and wearing a shirt that covers his Constitutional rights?

You cannot answer that without twisting and gyrating. I can answer it clearly, government can stop one citizen from harming another one, government has no legitimate right to force one citizen to do anything for another.

It's not arbitrary and no twisting is required. Can this guy gas up the car in that shirt? You bet. Can he eat dinner in a restaurant? If the restaurant is okay with the shirt he can, otherwise no, they have dress-codes which are reasonable.

Can you take that to extremes, well if the guy is totally naked the gas station can now say no but at the nudist restaurant, it's Good Evening Mr. Jacobs, your usual table sir? The restaurant could actually say we have a dress code here and cannot serve you tonight unfortunately, as you have clothes on...

I like how you started with it's not arbitrary, then you were totally arbitrary. But when you advocate it's reasonable for government to use force to compel it's citizens to implement it's social policy, there really is no way it's not going to be arbitrary.

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder if they would have let him in if he asked for a queer wedding cake......

Do grow up please. TY.

And do tell, what exactly is gayer than a wedding cake in the first place? Just the thought of on has me looking for the bar...

I didn't expect you to get it.

What you aren't getting is that is the snark of a child. The park didn't say we don't serve your kind, the park said not in that shirt buddy. They are nothing like the same thing.

 

[Ibentoken]

It's not arbitrary and no twisting is required. Can this guy gas up the car in that shirt? You bet. Can he eat dinner in a restaurant? If the restaurant is okay with the shirt he can, otherwise no, they have dress-codes which are reasonable.

Can you take that to extremes, well if the guy is totally naked the gas station can now say no but at the nudist restaurant, it's Good Evening Mr. Jacobs, your usual table sir? The restaurant could actually say we have a dress code here and cannot serve you tonight unfortunately, as you have clothes on...

I like how you started with it's not arbitrary, then you were totally arbitrary. But when you advocate it's reasonable for government to use force to compel it's citizens to implement it's social policy, there really is no way it's not going to be arbitrary.

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

 

[Ibentoken]

Do grow up please. TY.

And do tell, what exactly is gayer than a wedding cake in the first place? Just the thought of on has me looking for the bar...

I didn't expect you to get it.

What you aren't getting is that is the snark of a child. The park didn't say we don't serve your kind, the park said not in that shirt buddy. They are nothing like the same thing.

Oh, okay. So the park employee is frightened by a shirt. Don't you think that's a little silly?

 

[kaz]

I like how you started with it's not arbitrary, then you were totally arbitrary. But when you advocate it's reasonable for government to use force to compel it's citizens to implement it's social policy, there really is no way it's not going to be arbitrary.

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

Exactly, liberals like to blur that distinction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A bit of apples and oranges in there, but good to know.

Government should not use force to compel it's citizens to do business with anyone. How is that "apples and oranges?" That doesn't even make sense.

There's a huge difference between a dress-code and the rules that govern, which I know you hate, Public Accommodations.

The park has the right to say no ****** T-shirts, it does not have the right to say no faggots. Oddly enough, both of those are designed to keep the peace and let everyone get on with their business...

That's bull, and you know it. You're not as stupid as rightwinger. Public accommodation codes of the type we're talking about have nothing to do with serving or not serving homosexuals. They have to do with compelling Christians, for example, to participate in pagan rituals or to produce works expressing values that are contrary to their religious convictions. That is a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law, and you leftist hypocrites bloody well know it. Indeed, the prospect of a judge ordering a Christian to attend "reeducation" classes is an especially obnoxious violation of natural and constitutional law.

Apples and oranges?! You statist thugs think you can play this game? You think it's a done deal, that Christians are just going to roll over and be reduced to second class citizens, that they're going to violate their relationship with God, that they are going to betray their Savior. You're outside your minds. Christians are not going to comply. If the courts do not put down these outrageous violations of natural and constitutional law, you're going to have massive, nationwide civil disobedience on your hands.

Christians are merely waiting to see what the courts are going to do for now . . . the lull before the explosion. The courts had better get this right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I like how you started with it's not arbitrary, then you were totally arbitrary. But when you advocate it's reasonable for government to use force to compel it's citizens to implement it's social policy, there really is no way it's not going to be arbitrary.

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

Others? You mean the people and things that you don't approve of personally...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Government should not use force to compel it's citizens to do business with anyone. How is that "apples and oranges?" That doesn't even make sense.

There's a huge difference between a dress-code and the rules that govern, which I know you hate, Public Accommodations.

The park has the right to say no ****** T-shirts, it does not have the right to say no faggots. Oddly enough, both of those are designed to keep the peace and let everyone get on with their business...

That's bull, and you know it. You're not as stupid as rightwinger. Public accommodation codes of the type we're talking about have nothing to do with serving or not serving homosexuals. They have to do with compelling Christians, for example, to participate in pagan rituals or to produce works expressing values that are contrary to their religious convictions. That is a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law, and you leftist hypocrites bloody well know it. Indeed, the prospect of a judge ordering a Christian to attend "reeducation" classes is an especially obnoxious violation of natural and constitutional law.

Apples and oranges?! You statist thugs think you can play this game? You think it's a done deal, that Christians are just going to roll over and be reduced to second class citizens, that they're going to violate their relationship with God, that they are going to betray their Savior. You're outside your minds. Christians are not going to comply. If the courts do not put down these outrageous violations of natural and constitutional law, you're going to have massive, nationwide civil disobedience on your hands.

Christians are merely waiting to see what the courts are going to do for now . . . the lull before the explosion. The courts had better get this right.

Baking cakes for money is not serving God, and if you serve one, you serve all, under reasonable conditions of course. The Jewish deli is not required to serve pork, but it is required to serve all faiths, and that's appropriate.

 

[Ibentoken]

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

Exactly, liberals like to blur that distinction.

They're dishonest lying trash.

 

[Ibentoken]

Life is situational, sorry. You'll just have to deal with the fact that your ideological statements like, you should keep what you earn for example, sound terrific but in the real world it doesn't work that way. In the real world we have taxes and depending upon the situation you might pay more or you might pay less. That's reality.

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

Others? You mean the people and things that you don't approve of personally...

Once again you muddy the waters. Tell me why I should pay from my earnings to support someone else.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I didn't expect you to get it.

What you aren't getting is that is the snark of a child. The park didn't say we don't serve your kind, the park said not in that shirt buddy. They are nothing like the same thing.

Oh, okay. So the park employee is frightened by a shirt. Don't you think that's a little silly?

I doubt he was frightened in any way at all, but he obviously thought others might be or just be offended. That shirt could have said thousands of things and the point stands, it's the park's call...

 

[Ibentoken]

There's a huge difference between a dress-code and the rules that govern, which I know you hate, Public Accommodations.

The park has the right to say no ****** T-shirts, it does not have the right to say no faggots. Oddly enough, both of those are designed to keep the peace and let everyone get on with their business...

That's bull, and you know it. You're not as stupid as rightwinger. Public accommodation codes of the type we're talking about have nothing to do with serving or not serving homosexuals. They have to do with compelling Christians, for example, to participate in pagan rituals or to produce works expressing values that are contrary to their religious convictions. That is a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law, and you leftist hypocrites bloody well know it. Indeed, the prospect of a judge ordering a Christian to attend "reeducation" classes is an especially obnoxious violation of natural and constitutional law.

Apples and oranges?! You statist thugs think you can play this game? You think it's a done deal, that Christians are just going to roll over and be reduced to second class citizens, that they're going to violate their relationship with God, that they are going to betray their Savior. You're outside your minds. Christians are not going to comply. If the courts do not put down these outrageous violations of natural and constitutional law, you're going to have massive, nationwide civil disobedience on your hands.

Christians are merely waiting to see what the courts are going to do for now . . . the lull before the explosion. The courts had better get this right.

Baking cakes for money is not serving God, and if you serve one, you serve all, under reasonable conditions of course. The Jewish deli is not required to serve pork, but it is required to serve all faiths, and that's appropriate.

So the park is allowed to reject a person to do business with because of their shirt, but the Christian is forced to do business with someone who they don't want to do business with.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Paying taxes isn't an issue. The issue is paying taxes to support others.

Others? You mean the people and things that you don't approve of personally...

Once again you muddy the waters. Tell me why I should pay from my earnings to support someone else.

Because those before you did the same thing for you, and because it's the right thing to do. Those roads you drive on were paid for by others, and those who follow will use what you helped pay for. That's how the game works, and it works very well.

 

[Ibentoken]

What you aren't getting is that is the snark of a child. The park didn't say we don't serve your kind, the park said not in that shirt buddy. They are nothing like the same thing.

Oh, okay. So the park employee is frightened by a shirt. Don't you think that's a little silly?

I doubt he was frightened in any way at all, but he obviously thought others might be or just be offended. That shirt could have said thousands of things and the point stands, it's the park's call...

Okay. Let's use the same reasons for the Christian baker. Hypocrite.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's bull, and you know it. You're not as stupid as rightwinger. Public accommodation codes of the type we're talking about have nothing to do with serving or not serving homosexuals. They have to do with compelling Christians, for example, to participate in pagan rituals or to produce works expressing values that are contrary to their religious convictions. That is a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law, and you leftist hypocrites bloody well know it. Indeed, the prospect of a judge ordering a Christian to attend "reeducation" classes is an especially obnoxious violation of natural and constitutional law.

Apples and oranges?! You statist thugs think you can play this game? You think it's a done deal, that Christians are just going to roll over and be reduced to second class citizens, that they're going to violate their relationship with God, that they are going to betray their Savior. You're outside your minds. Christians are not going to comply. If the courts do not put down these outrageous violations of natural and constitutional law, you're going to have massive, nationwide civil disobedience on your hands.

Christians are merely waiting to see what the courts are going to do for now . . . the lull before the explosion. The courts had better get this right.

Baking cakes for money is not serving God, and if you serve one, you serve all, under reasonable conditions of course. The Jewish deli is not required to serve pork, but it is required to serve all faiths, and that's appropriate.

So the park is allowed to reject a person to do business with because of their shirt, but the Christian is forced to do business with someone who they don't want to do business with.

The park has the right to say not in that shirt, it does not have the right to say not you buddy, you're a Christian...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, okay. So the park employee is frightened by a shirt. Don't you think that's a little silly?

I doubt he was frightened in any way at all, but he obviously thought others might be or just be offended. That shirt could have said thousands of things and the point stands, it's the park's call...

Okay. Let's use the same reasons for the Christian baker. Hypocrite.

The baker is saying no faggots. The park is saying no ****** T-shirts. Apples and oranges kiddos...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do grow up please. TY.

And do tell, what exactly is gayer than a wedding cake in the first place? Just the thought of on has me looking for the bar...

I didn't expect you to get it.

What you aren't getting is that is the snark of a child. The park didn't say we don't serve your kind, the park said not in that shirt buddy. They are nothing like the same thing.

Still pretending not to understand, I see.

Get this straight. Your obtuse pretensions are not going to fly with the Christian community, and neither is the stupidity of the clueless among us like rightwinger or peach. There is a civil liberties backlash coming that is going to make the fight over abortion look like a tea party if the courts don't put your bootlicking statist thuggery down for the rabid dog that it is. You fools have no idea. You will have to jail Christians Is that what you're prepared to do in order to carry on this pretense? You think things aren't going to get ugly? And I mean real ugly.

 

[Ibentoken]

Others? You mean the people and things that you don't approve of personally...

Once again you muddy the waters. Tell me why I should pay from my earnings to support someone else.

Because those before you did the same thing for you, and because it's the right thing to do. Those roads you drive on were paid for by others, and those who follow will use what you helped pay for. That's how the game works, and it works very well.

No, government never supported me. My parents worked. I went to work in their little neighborhood store when I was 12 years old after school and went to work full time at 18. No government funds. Now I'm retired and have what I earned and receive a check every month from money I have PAID to my government since 1964. Now tell me why I should support people.