This is what left-wing policy results in

[P@triot]

So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens? The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?

Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support liberty (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).

 

[NYcarbineer]

So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens? The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?

Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support liberty (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).

They do? So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?

lol, You. Fucking. Retard.

 

[P@triot]

So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens? The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?

Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support liberty (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).

They do? So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?

There was no "long history" of slavery in America, you freaking nitwit. It last less than 100 years. Not thousands of years. Not even a hundred years. Less than a hundred. It was British tradition/culture and America corrected it.

Any other stupid things you'd like to say?

 

[Andylusion]

So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens? The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?

Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support liberty (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).

They do? So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?

lol, You. Fucking. Retard.

Even if slavery existing in the US for its entire existence, that would be at most 240 years.

Slavery has existed for at least 6,000 years. And by the way, there are parts of the world where slavery still exists. Maybe not 'official' but it still is practiced routinely.

Second, slavery in the US ended in 1865, and the country was created in 1776. That means that only 90 years of the 240 years we've existed, did we have slavery. It wasn't a long history.

You are just ignorant, or a liar on that.

 

[IcebergSlim]

They are only allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.

Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'

How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?

Well since there is no flour from our benevolent government, none, or for anything else for that matter. My workers Utopia is a bread line.

For gay wedding cake?

 

[IcebergSlim]

How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?

What kind of "logic" is that? So the Nazi concentration camps didn't exist since there were some people who were never thrown into them?

Certainly not nearly as impervious to challenge as a "death camp" analogy....


Touche!

 

[Nosmo King]

They are only allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.

Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'

Let's review. Venezuela imposed wage and price controls to stem inflation. Those policies are not working. Should the Venezuelan government adopt new economic policies now? Absolutely. There's no sin in having an open mind, and there's no virtue in doubling down due to partisan ideologies.

But your homophobic bakers in America under the heavy hand of government and the sweet bread and brownie makers in Venezuela doesn't line up. The Venezuelan food shortage presents a challenge to society much the same as war does. America rationed food in WW II to face the crisis of that war. A state that is concerned about its citizens hunger takes steps to be assured that bread, at least, can be available is a worthy state.

But there isn't a food shortage in America. The state isn't mandating a menu, a list of special services they provide to the public. The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses. These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public. Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.

There is no piety in twisting Scripture to serve an unholy purpose. Neither is there nobility in twisting the law to serve a religion.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.

Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate

Should private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?

I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.

So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens? The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?

Are you seriously equating slavery with making a gay wedding cake? If you were then being forced to make that cake is actual slavery.

 

[P@triot]

The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses.

No citizen has a right to someone else's labor. We ended slavery in the 1860's. I know that bothers you hatriots who subsequently created the KKK and have been working day and night to find various ways to restore slavery. But at the end of the day - it doesn't change the fact that nobody has a constitutional right to someone else's labor.

 

[P@triot]

These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public. Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.

And the wedding vendors are looking for all of their rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution to not only practice their religion, but also to not be forced into providing their labor or entering into commerce against their will.

Those rights trump whatever "high level of service" a homosexual is looking for. Would you like to try again?

 

[Nosmo King]

The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses.

No citizen has a right to someone else's labor. We ended slavery in the 1860's. I know that bothers you hatriots who subsequently created the KKK and have been working day and night to find various ways to restore slavery. But at the end of the day - it doesn't change the fact that nobody has a constitutional right to someone else's labor.

Are Homosexual couples going into wedding vendors with nets and cages? Are they kidnapping scores of bakers and florists, taking them to their Gay Plantations and whipping these poor people until they do I see what they chose to do for a living anyway?

Hyperbole is a poor foundations n for an argument. Calling something slavery when it clearly isn't disrespects the victims of slavery and makes your next statement carry the tinge of ridicule.

 

[Nosmo King]

These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public. Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.

And the wedding vendors are looking for all of their rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution to not only practice their religion, but also to not be forced into providing their labor or entering into commerce against their will.

Those rights trump whatever "high level of service" a homosexual is looking for. Would you like to try again?

Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion. Seeking cover by religious objections is a weak way to practice a strong faith. Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.

Homosexuals are not breaking the law by merely being homosexual. Why would you have a law abiding citizen regarded as less than you? Where is that bit of arrogance enshrined in a document that exclusively protects rights as Americans. It does not say protect rights for Christians, Jews, Taoist, Shinto and Buddhists.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion.

Yeah? And? So? Nobody is advocating that the government discriminate against homosexuals based on religion (or anything else). You seem to be confused between government (which cannot discriminate) and private citizen (which can discriminate).

 

[P@triot]

Homosexuals are not breaking the law by merely being homosexual. Why would you have a law abiding citizen regarded as less than you?

I don't. But some people do. And that is absolutely their right to do so. Liberty includes the freedom to hate, be hateful, be bigoted, and every other ugly thing you can think of. It is a small price to pay for liberty.

 

[P@triot]

Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.

And using a self-perceived moral high ground "as a standard for our social comportment" is something an arrogant, maniacal dictator like Saddam Hussein would do.

 

[Nosmo King]

Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion.

Yeah? And? So? Nobody is advocating that the government discriminate against homosexuals based on religion (or anything else). You seem to be confused between government (which cannot discriminate) and private citizen (which can discriminate).

Can a license holding business discriminate? A business paying taxes and receiving in return the protections afforded by the state discriminate? Can lunch counters in Woolworth's or the County Registar of Voters or Greyhound bus lines?

Ways a business can refuse service and remain within the bounds of the law are, commonly, no shirt, no shoes, no service. But this is discrimination with public safety in the balance. What public safety concerns are addressed by discriminating against law abiding, tax paying customers with payment in hand who happen to be homosexual?

 

[Nosmo King]

Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.

And using a self-perceived moral high ground "as a standard for our social comportment" is something an arrogant, maniacal dictator like Saddam Hussein would do.

Isn't the moral high ground by means of self perceived piety something the homophobic vendors are trying to get?

Where did this dogma come from, this 'avoid commerce with homosexuals'? I've been a member of the same church for forty six years. Never once did my minister ever admonish the congregation to avoid commerce with anyone, let alone homosexuals. There are some Fundamentalist Christians who will twist Scripture and create dogma to justify their hatred and bigotry, which are their rights, as you say. But there are also Muslims who twist their Scripture to serve vile means too. Should we stand up for a belief that refutes our society and its secular ethics to suit a minority of American Taliban?

 

[danielpalos]

We had a socialized, Manhattan Project for fission via command economics.

No. No we didn't. Government handling their constitutional responsibilities is not "command economy". Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

A true wartime economy is command economics. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[P@triot]

Can a license holding business discriminate?

Yes. The U.S. Constitution says so.

A business paying taxes and receiving in return the protections afforded by the state discriminate?

Yes. What the hell does their paying taxes have to do with the group they choose to discriminate against?

Can lunch counters in Woolworth's

Yes.

or the County Registar of Voters

No. They are government. They cannot discriminate.

or Greyhound bus lines?

Yes.

Ways a business can refuse service and remain within the bounds of the law are, commonly, no shirt, no shoes, no service.

Legally, businesses can refuse service any time, any where, for any reason. The U.S. Constitution says so. And it trumps and an all laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution says so.

 

[P@triot]

Isn't the moral high ground by means of self perceived piety something the homophobic vendors are trying to get?

Yes. But the difference is, they aren't forcing it on all of society like you're trying to do. When a baker declines to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they aren't telling you or someone else that you cannot bake that cake. That's the beauty of liberty. It's something you should study. You sound very much like a Saddam Hussein. Hell bent on forcing society to embrace your view instead of leaving everyone be to embrace their own.