San Antonio Considers AntiChristian Proposal BArring Business With Christians

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, your weak point is that your argument is weak and needs no refutation.

It falls summarily on its own fail. No one has to do anything else.

That is the biggest circular logic I have ever seen. .

Where is my error? I don't have to refute because your argument summarily fails, Marty.

In court, a judge would say don't waste his time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you should be able to serve in city government. If such a city law penalizes thought only, then it will be overturned in court. But if you are a florist who refuses to cater gay weddings because they are gay, or refuses white shoppers because they are white, guess the **** what. Hmmm.

That should not preclude you from running for any office, no matter what you think. Again, thoughtcrime.

Are you more than just willfully dense?

 

[martybegan]

Marty, your weak point is that your argument is weak and needs no refutation.

It falls summarily on its own fail. No one has to do anything else.

That is the biggest circular logic I have ever seen. .

Where is my error? I don't have to refute because your argument summarily fails, Marty.

In court, a judge would say don't waste his time.

No substance to your comment, again, just flapping in the wind.

Do you think religous tests are acceptable for city council positions?

 

[martybegan]

Then you should be able to serve in city government. If such a city law penalizes thought only, then it will be overturned in court. But if you are a florist who refuses to cater gay weddings because they are gay, or refuses white shoppers because they are white, guess the **** what. Hmmm.

That should not preclude you from running for any office, no matter what you think. Again, thoughtcrime.

Are you more than just willfully dense?

No, you are willfuly ignorant.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is the biggest circular logic I have ever seen. .

Where is my error? I don't have to refute because your argument summarily fails, Marty.

In court, a judge would say don't waste his time.

No substance to your comment, again, just flapping in the wind.

Do you think religous tests are acceptable for city council positions?

Yes, he does if it suits his cause. But don't hold your breath expecting him to answer you.

Starkey is a liar, a fraud and an ideological fool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is my error? I don't have to refute because your argument summarily fails, Marty.

In court, a judge would say don't waste his time.

No substance to your comment, again, just flapping in the wind.

Do you think religous tests are acceptable for city council positions?

Yes, he does if it suits his cause. But don't hold your breath expecting him to answer you.

Starkey is a liar, a fraud and an ideological fool.

JB is merely talking to himself in the his selfloathing mirror, because he knows he embodies both falsehood and fraudulence as character traits.

What 'religious test'? If the law penalizes thought, court will throw it out. But if it penalizes behavior, denying others rights because of religious beliefs, it will stand.

 

[martybegan]

No substance to your comment, again, just flapping in the wind.

Do you think religous tests are acceptable for city council positions?

Yes, he does if it suits his cause. But don't hold your breath expecting him to answer you.

Starkey is a liar, a fraud and an ideological fool.

JB is merely talking to himself in the his selfloathing mirror, because he knows he embodies both falsehood and fraudulence as character traits.

What 'religious test'? If the law penalizes thought, court will throw it out. But if it penalizes behavior, denying others rights because of religious beliefs, it will stand.

Again, by "denying rights" one can say someone is "denying rights" if they go to a church that will not perform gay marriage.

Finally, only the government can attempt to deny someone of thier rights in a consitutional sense. When a person does it, it is a civil or criminal matter, and said person has to be sued/tried in a court to be punished.

Here you are trying to bring the punishment to the burecratic level, an abuse of the consitution from an amendment perspective, as well as a seperation of powers perspective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you are entitled to your mistaken analysis, I agree.

Show us how court will not throw out such a proposed ordinance if it violates one's thought.

But if a particular church going, such as Rev Wright or Bob Jones, is penalized in the ordiance, the law will be thrown out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Marty, you are entitled to your mistaken analysis, I agree.

Show us how court will not throw out such a proposed ordinance if it violates one's thought.

But if a particular church going, such as Rev Wright or Bob Jones, is penalized in the ordiance, the law will be thrown out.

He doesn't need to show that the courts will throw out anything when the law itself would be wrong to begin with, you damned liar.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you are entitled to your mistaken analysis, I agree.

Show us how court will not throw out such a proposed ordinance if it violates one's thought.

But if a particular church going, such as Rev Wright or Bob Jones, is penalized in the ordiance, the law will be thrown out.

My analysis is not mistaken. The law would allow them to be banned from running for office and is unconstiutional. That it would even be proposed shows the facist mindset of todays progressive.

 

[dilloduck]

They are attempting to codify thought crimes. It's only a matter of time before thinking the "wrong" way will be criminal. They jumped the gun but give it time. "Soft" discrimination is already occurring.

 

[Katzndogz]

They are attempting to codify thought crimes. It's only a matter of time before thinking the "wrong" way will be criminal. They jumped the gun but give it time. "Soft" discrimination is already occurring.

Wrong thinking would be evidenced by going to a Christian church. Attending that Church would be enough of a "deed" to prohibit a Christian from being elected to office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you are entitled to your mistaken analysis, I agree.

Show us how court will not throw out such a proposed ordinance if it violates one's thought.

But if a particular church going, such as Rev Wright or Bob Jones, is penalized in the ordiance, the law will be thrown out.

My analysis is not mistaken. The law would allow them to be banned from running for office and is unconstiutional. That it would even be proposed shows the facist mindset of todays progressive.

Yup, you are mistaken in your general argument. Have faith in the system. Court will throw it out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are attempting to codify thought crimes. It's only a matter of time before thinking the "wrong" way will be criminal. They jumped the gun but give it time. "Soft" discrimination is already occurring.

Wrong thinking would be evidenced by going to a Christian church. Attending that Church would be enough of a "deed" to prohibit a Christian from being elected to office.

Evidence? Facts? Or it is weirdset reactonary conservative social traditionalism on steriods.