Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

[The Derp]

I am defending their right to free exercise only for contracted services.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, here we have a fifth re-definition of parameters. I mean at this point, it's just expected that you're going to move the goalposts from post to post. The contracted services they offer are through their public business, aren't they? So....you keep trying to make this distinction about point of sale, but that's unchanged if the bakery is a public accommodation. Doesn't matter if it's contractual or not. A receipt is a contract.

if they put a "gays not wanted" sign in front of their point of sale bakery I would not defend them at all..

Unless they claimed it was a religious exercise, right? Then you'd defend them.

that would be a PA violation. And your insults just show how weak your argument is. I was much angrier in the past, hell even a few weeks ago. Things recently in life have shown me the best way to handle useless people like you is to just let you vent, and counter your bullshit with reality

So marty, I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to avoid the big holes I poked in everything you said. I get why. You're a coward.

Argumentum ad absurdum, equating limits on government to no laws whatsoever.

But that's exactly what you did when you invoked Dred Scott to counter my appeal to authority while basing your entire argument around an appeal to an invisible authority when it comes to whom and why you're baking a cake.

And the thing is if you recognize that hypocrisy in your own argument, but still making the argument, I'm not sure that's any better than simply not recognizing the hypocrisy at all.

 

[The Derp]

I notice it's always the low IQ people who ***** about IQ.

Do yourself a favor and learn something. You're not a very informed person. You like to pretend you are for the sake of your fellow troglodytes on this board, but you're not.

 

[The Derp]

Wrong. You have twisted the words of the Act to fit what you WANT it to say. That, or you just flat out lied. It doesn't say you "cannot discriminate on any grounds." It states very specifically that you cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. It does not say anything about sexual orientation. So the CRA of 1964 carries no weight with what you're talking about.

Ahhh, but the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage codified homosexual marriage as a 14th Amendment right, so the precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class has been set by SCOTUS' 2015 decision on gay marriage, and that's precisely what these courts in these cases are going to say.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

Ahhh, but you didn't say "someone", you said "anyone". So just like marty mcfuckup, you are redefining the parameters.

Also, peopleofwalmart.com kinda blows a hole in your entire argument.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It doesn't matter if its a protected class, the CRA of 1964 does not cover gays so you quoting that as the reason a company has to make a cake for a gay couple is not correct. The SC did not say that law changed. Homosexual marriage might be a right, but it still isn't effected by the CRA of 1964. Sorry.

Legalzoom.com is on my side, and who is on yours? Liberals? Gays?

Here, I'll do your job without personal attacks.

Whether or not its legal is up to a particular state. You're quoting federal laws only, but each state can and does have their own laws regarding refusing service to someone. It might be legal to tell a gay couple no in one state, and illegal across the border. But there is no federal law protecting gays against discrimination by a private business.

 

[The Derp]

I had not formed an opinion either way

But you did form an opinion about Obama. You said so yourself that he had to meet your standard of "sufficient" in order for you to accept that he was born in Hawaii. Which means prior to that standard, you didn't think he was born here. Otherwise, why provide sufficient proof at all? So that's how you're a racist shithead lying sack of crap.

I followed the stories, saw the BC

Followed the stories, eh? What made you follow those stories? How come you weren't like most people and were "this birther thing is bullshit"? Obviously because you were a birther. This isn't very hard to figure out and you're digging yourself in deeper.

Just like I stopped following stories on McCain and Cruz when the issue of their birth was settled to my satisfaction.

The issues around McCain and Cruz were entirely different than what you put Obama through. Obama, unlike Cruz and McCain, was physically born in the United States, yet you required his birth certificate to satisfy your idea of sufficient. Which means you didn't think he was born in Hawaii if he has to prove to you that he was.

So you can re-word and dance your way around with your rhetoric all you'd like, the fact is that you were (and may still be) a birther.

Just because I didn't post on something didn't mean I wasn't following it. A lack of posting about it does not evidence make.

Kinda hard to believe since you posted over 35,000 messages about everything else since April 2010. Including about Obama's birth certificate. So I don't believe you when you say you were "following it". I think you're just saying that so you don't look as bad. Once again, you've managed to make something all about you and your shitty ego.

No i read about it and discussed it. The provision of the certificate ended my interest in the topic

But you didn't discuss it. We can search your posts, you know. Why are you lying? What are you hoping to gain by lying? It makes no sense for you to lie at this point when we all know the truth. Is this a denial thing? What gives?

Because this is probably the most I have discussed the topic of ANY of their eligibility questions. It wasn't a topic that interested me once I read the proofs of all their eligibility.

No, marty, you didn't discuss their eligibility at all, yet you posted about Obama's birth certificate. So why is that the case? Simple; you're a racist.

you can believe what you want.

But if I claim it's a religious exercise you have to accept it as fact, right?

 

[airplanemechanic]

A wedding isn't religious. Atheists get married all the time.

 

[The Derp]

None of my arguments are false, you just don't like or don't understand them.

All of your arguments are false. They are rife with self-contradictions, avoidance, and just plain lies. Stuff that is so easily called out it boggles the mind you would even think of lying about it in the first place. I think you do what you do because you are an insecure, whiny little *****. Someone who knows his beliefs are bullshit, but whose ego prevents him from admitting as such. So you say things like how you don't have to provide proof (!), or that we should take your word for it, or whatever. My question, that is still unanswered, is why the **** should I take you at your word? You're making your word the central pillar of your argument, yet you refuse to defend it! So your word needs to be supported with something in order for it to be trusted. But you refuse to do that. Because you can't, obviously.

You're just a ******* bigot. A passive-aggressive bigot, but a bigot nonetheless.

Providing the cake for a ceremony that celebrates something they find immoral is the issue, not the baking..

Again, a wedding reception is not a ceremony. So you're trying to conflate the two because that's the only way your sophist argument makes sense. But you know that a wedding reception and wedding ceremony are two different things. I know you know that. The question is; why aren't you admitting that on this board? And how would the bakers even know if the cake was a part of the ceremony, in the weirdo instance where cake (!) is somehow incorporated in with the exchanging of vows. ******* stupid. You're such a liar. You'd even go so far as to lie about your own wedding reception because you think it might help you win an argument. Seriously, you're a piece of shit and I pity your poor wife.

And more appeal to authority from you.

That's rich since your entire argument hinges on the appeal to an invisible authority when it comes to baking a cake. If we don't appeal to authority (i.e. the courts), then what's the point of our judicial system? **** man, you don't even seem to know the function of the Judicial branch! They are literally the authority you appeal to. And unlike your God, they're not invisible.

This is just pathetic. You're an embarrassment.

Butt hurt is not harm.

So stop whining about paying the price for discrimination, then. Sheesh. If I have to hear one more Christian whine about how bad it makes them feel that gay people eat a cake they baked...SMH. Talk about butt hurt. You've done nothing but whine like a little *****. On this board. Oh woe is the poor bigots who are only trying to be bigots and using their religion to justify it! Oh woe is them! Wahhhhh!

and there is no right of a person to have the specific cake they want from a specific vendor.

If that bakery is a public accommodation, which it is, then they have no grounds to discriminate. Period. Full stop. You are pretending that contracting is not a point of sale, but it certainly is. Contractors cannot discriminate based on protected statuses. So you think you're being clever by making shit up about the law, but you're not. You're just making shit up.

The harm is them having to choose between a massive fine and violating the religious moral beliefs.

Can you please point out where in the Bible it talks about baking cakes for weddings? Can you please point out where in the Bible it says baking a cake is an exercising of Christianity? Oh wait, you don't think you have to prove any of that shit. LOL!

You: Baking a cake is a religious exercise.
Me: Really? Where in the Bible does it say that?
You: I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY PROOF
Me: So you just made that up then?
You: STOP BEING A NARCISSIST! STOP APPEALING TO AUTHORITY*
Me: You're the one saying bakers are appealing to the invisible authority that is God.
You: (no response because you just realized your own argument was tripped by your own rhetoric)

*I think you just learned that phrase today and were looking for an excuse to use it, BTW

That is your view, it is not theirs. and the cutting of the cake by the bride and groom has been an integral part of the overall event for centuries.

Thing is, you and they refuse to say how they came to that as their view, and on what are they basing that view. Which means they just came to that view just then and are basing it on their bigotry. Because if you're going to call me out for appealing to authority, ya kinda have to do it to them too since the authority they are appealing to is invisible and imaginary.

That's how it works.

 

[The Derp]

A wedding isn't religious. Atheists get married all the time.

Exactly. So baking a cake for a wedding has no religious connotations to it either. Which makes the excuses bullshit, doesn't it?

 

[The Derp]

It doesn't matter if its a protected class, the CRA of 1964 does not cover gays so you quoting that as the reason a company has to make a cake for a gay couple is not correct. The SC did not say that law changed. Homosexual marriage might be a right, but it still isn't effected by the CRA of 1964. Sorry.

Then by all means, go and look at the court decisions that have happened, both at the state and federal level, involving these bigots. Why do you think they're appealing these decisions? Because they courts ruled they violated the civil rights of gay people.

 

[Correll]

And it is highly unlikely that that bakers shared your view on the law, and thus your standard for throwing people in jail is not meant, and your desire to jail people is just you being a bad person.

Well, the bakers don't even accept the law, so I don't know how you think we can have a discussion about how they view something they don't even accept. And it doesn't matter what they view the law as, the law is the law. They violated the law by invoking the squishy concept of "religious liberty" without even bothering to articulate how it's a religious liberty issue. Again, no mention of wedding cakes in the Bible. Again, God is supposed to forgive and Jesus died for your sins. Again, God seems to have forgiven the Catholic Church for institutional rape so why wouldn't God forgive someone for baking a cake? That question is one you all have avoided completely. Obviously because you recognize pulling at that thread unravels the whole sweater.

You set the standard to jail them at "KNOWINGLY" violating the rights of the cake wanters.

Now you are arguing that what they "know" doesn't matter.


THat's moving the goal posts and you lose.

Also, as I said, I get that you don't like Christianity. That is irrelevant and boring. Stop wasting your time telling me about that. I don't care. I don't read those parts, I just skim to see if there is anything even close to relevant.

"Boring". Look man, if you're gonna jack from my posts, at least have the common decency to not look like a shitgobbling poseur plagairist as you do it. Try thinking of things on your own instead of stealing from others. Of course, that could just be a pie-in-the-sky request on my part. Being Conservative means you don't have to think for yourself. It's "God's will" after all, right?[/QUOTE]




I have no idea what you are on about.


There was nothing there but unsupported personal opinion and bile.

 

[Correll]

Like I said, got it, you hate Christianity. Don't care.

Oh stop being a whiny little *****. Christians are not victims and haven't been since the days the Romans would throw them to the lions. My point is that for a God who supposedly forgives and whose son died for everyone's sins, he sure seems to have a bug up his ass about wedding cakes and not things like institutionalized child rape. What kind of God is that, and who would worship a deity with those principles? That's why the whole "religious liberty" argument is bullshit. If that's the defense, then it means the God you love and worship isn't who you are pretending it is. If your God can't forgive you for baking a wedding cake, why the **** do you have faith in it!?!?

Stupid and childish. And I think even you recognize that.

Yeah, that's really stupid, what you said. Insanely so. Really ******* stupid.

How so? Becuase your parents did such a shit job raising you, you crave an authoritarian hand in order to maintain control. These "religious liberty" arguments are just that; cover for the insecurity that you no longer have the dominant control over society you once had. "You" in this context being white Christian males. So because your grasp on power isn't nearly as strong as it was before (but make no mistake, is still strong and dominant nonetheless), you have to dress up your insecurity in the contradictory "faith" argument because there is no social, moral, or ethical argument for what you believe. Again, that's because your parents were shit, did a shit job raising you, and produced shit adults who use their shit belief system to pretend their discrimination isn't based in bigotry and hatred and shit. But we all know it is...I think even you know it is. But you fight against it because you're a whiny little *****, with whiny little ***** arguments, who makes whiny little ***** moves to pretend to be a victim of your victimizing.

But Christians and Conservatives like to think of themselves as perpetual victims. And they're right in a sense. They are victims, only they're victims of their own delusion, bigotry, and gullibility...and of those who filled their head with empty promises about "Making America Great" and trickle-down prosperity and all that stupid shit.

And your claim to desire to discuss issues, that seems to have faded away.

I am all about discussing issues, but you all never want to do that. Because you all seek to make everything about yourselves and your egos. Get over yourself.

Yeah, I can't see any actual points in any of that, just your bile and hatred.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is only the law, and the bigots' attempts to justify abrogating responsibility to the law. It's not up for debate that they violated the civil rights of gay people.

There is no “civil right” to another person's labor or support. Nothing in the Constitution even implies or hints at any such thing. In fact, parts of the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments rather solidly refute any claim to any such “right”.

The First Amendment explicitly protects freedoms of religion, speech, expression, and assembly, and in so doing, very strongly implies freedoms of conscience and association as well. Using the force of law to compel a person to provide any goods or services in support of something overtly immoral—such as a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding—is wholly irreconcilable with the rights affirmed and implied by the First Amendment.

I find it funny when extreme left wrong-wing filth speak of the “rule of law”, when making excuses to violate the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law.

 

[martybegan]

Again, that is your view. Theirs is different, and its their civil rights that are being violated in the name of "equality"

There aren't multiple "views" at play here. There is only the law, and the bigots' attempts to justify abrogating responsibility to the law. It's not up for debate that they violated the civil rights of gay people. They did. That's why they're in court. The debate that should happen is; how is baking a cake a religious act? You say they and you don't have to provide proof of any kind that it is, only that merely saying so makes it so. Well, that's not how the law works, the courts work, and society works. You don't get to invent things on the spot, pretend those things are the standard, all so you can justify your racism and/or bigotry. So how is baking a cake a religious act when there's no mention of it in the Bible, and the cake isn't even a part of the ceremony they "object" to based solely and only on their bigoted racist interpretation of what they think God thinks.

So it's like the Conservative trifecta: Narcissism, bigotry, and irresponsibility.

Just because you dismiss the point doesn't make it invalid.

What makes it invalid is how you refuse to provide anything to support it. You said yourself you don't have to. Really? Well, that's not what the courts said. So you can just claim any act is a religious one, right? Isn't that what you're doing? You do something wrong because you're a piece of shit, so you try to excuse it by throwing your hands up and saying "oh, it's religious exercising". When asked how it's religious exercising, your reply was "I don't have to say how, it just is". No. You have to say how. Otherwise, you're opening the door for any action against the law as being one of religious exercise. Which is bullshit because you just got done saying my examples of religious exercising aren't because they break the law. Well, discriminating against gay people is against the law too. You don't get a special exemption because you claim religion. Mostly because you refuse to even say how it is religious in the first place. And the fucked up thing is that I think you already know that. Yet you do it anyway. Which makes you a sophist and an asshole.

You are splitting hairs because you have no real argument past "I don't like these people, let government mess with them, fap fap fap fap"

How am I splitting hairs? Explain. I think you just spout off random shit because you think it makes you look more clever than you actually are. As I've said countless times, I don't care if you worship some magic cloud fairy. Just do it in the privacy of your home and in your church. Don't bring that shit to society where it can **** with the minds of children. We have to think of the children. We can't let them believe that you can justify any action by claiming religious freedom. Because that's how we got Jim Crow, among other stains.

You said you would rape my wife. Family member involved AND a proposed Criminal act.

No, what I said was that if I fucked your wife (consent wasn't even discussed), you can't get mad at her or me because I did so as a religious exercise. What you did, again, was exercise sophistry and lies and pretend that I said I raped her, when you and I both know that wasn't what I said, and we can even go back at the thread and look at what I said. So you deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to make yourself a victim. And you're not a sophist? LOL! whatever.

And a self defense claim is affirmative, and not a question of religious dogma..

According to you. And we know that you just make up accommodations whenever it suits your fluid, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting, parameter-redefining argument. You notice how inconsistent you are about what you believe? First you said baking a cake was a religious exercise. Then you said, "oh baking a cake for the ceremony is a religious exercise", then you said "oh baking a cake in celebration of the ceremony is a religious exercise" so in three posts you changed the context of what you said three times. And you're not a sophist? LOL...OK, pal...

How is getting a wedding cake from a particular vendor a civil right?

I support it with the constitution, which you choose to ignore because you hate religious people

And free exercise doesn't mean worship in the closet. You don't get to have the vapors just because you see a cross or see someone praying in public, or referencing their religion in their politics.

Family members are off limits, you broke the rules, and you are a terrible person.

Is sophism something your college professor just taught you about?

 

[martybegan]

You can do whatever you want, but again, my not posting is not proof of me never looking it up or considering it.

Yes it is, because you bleated on and on in 2010 and 2011 about Obama's birth certificate - we have the post records to prove it. But strangely, there are no posts of yours from 2016 when Ted Cruz was running for President and you supposedly "looked into it".

I think you know you just got caught on your bullshit.

Because it was in the news.

Maybe for one 24-hour cycle, barely. But the issue of Ted Cruz' legal status is wildly different than pretending Obama wasn't born in America at all. We all knew Cruz was born in Canada. The question there was whether or not his parents were citizens. You all didn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii, despite the fact that he was. So, how are those two the same? They're not. This is you trying to exercise sophistry in order to avoid culpability for your obvious racism and bigotry. Oh, also, not a single post from you on these boards about Cruz's status. So don't ******* lie to me. I'm not as stupid as you, so you can't fool me with this bullshit like you fool yourself.

Why are you putting yourself through the ringer here? Why not just admit that you had to be convinced by "sufficient proof" that Obama was born in the US because you're a racist shitgoblin? It would make it so much easier for you if you were just honest about this. I don't know why you aren't. Your ego doesn't matter enough to anyone. So why are you doing this?

I didn't lie about anything. you assumed and read into one of my posts to support your invalid claim.

But you did lie, though. You tried to pretend that you had just as much concern about Cruz' status as you did about Obama's birth but we know that's not true because we can see it in your post history. Not once until this thread in the thousands of posts of yours from the last 7 years did you mention Cruz and birth certificates in the same sentence. NOT ONCE. So I'm supposed to take your word for it? Why? Because your word is what your entire argument that you're not a racist hinges on and I gotta say, that and $5 will buy you a $5 footlong at Subway and nothing more.

I posted about it a bit, and in the end concluded the BC was valid.

No, you didn't post about Cruz at all. And for Obama, what you posted was that it wasn't until he provided you with "sufficient" proof that he was born in Hawaii. But why did you demand that standard of "sufficient proof" in the first place? Because you're a racist piece of shit who didn't like the fact that Obama's election was basically a rejection of the Conservative principles of the 8 years prior. Principles that are still unchanged today. The platform of Conservatives in 2017 is no different than the platform of Conservatives in 2008, which is no different than the platform of 2004, which is no different than the platform of 2000, and so on and so forth all the way back to 1980.

Actually, that's not entirely true. There has been one change to the Conservative platform over the last 45 years and it happened last summer at the RNC: they changed their Ukraine view from anti-Russia to pro-Russia. Gee, I wonder why...

You found one post by me about it. how is that bleating "on and on"?

wall of text, blah blah blah.

Again, a post history is not a complete record. your use of it is invalid.

More blah blah blah.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is the government's ability to ruin someone over butt hurt. That's what it boils down to. You are OK with it in this case because you hate Religious people.

The only butthurt whiners are you and your fellow bigots who are trying to convince us that their bigotry is justified by their religion. First of all, that's fucked up itself that you are using religion to justify bigotry. From what I've heard and been told about religion, that's a big no-no. Secondly, you're the one whining like a whiny little ***** about the "hardship" of "financial ruin" for bigots who are using religion to justify their bigotry. You say baking a cake is a religious act. Then you said baking the cake for the ceremony is a religious act. Then you said baking a cake in celebration of the event is a religious act. So...I count three distinctly different thoughts there, what about you? I count two goalpost shifts, what about you? Your idiot posts are so blatant about this redefinition of parameters...it's got the subtlety of a Baz Luhrmann movie.

Again, I don't hate religious people. As I've said over and over, you can believe in a magic cloud fairy...I don't care. I care when you use that belief system as justification for your immoral, inhuman, unethical, and bigoted actions. That's my line. So you can whine like a little ***** and pretend to be a victim. You can pretend that I "hate" religious people because casting it that way makes you feel better about your shit argument and shit belief system. The only thing you're a victim of is your own laziness.

Two sides of the same coin. My ceremony was AT my reception.

LOL! Annnnnnnnnnnnd right on cue, here comes the anecdotes. Which came first, the ceremony or the reception celebrating the ceremony? The ceremony, duh. Because why would you have your wedding reception before you have your wedding? That's called a Bridal Shower. ******* clown.

Discrimination is harm when it results in actual harm.

Denial of service is harm. That's what the courts said, and that's why all the appeals by your fellow bigots have been shot down, one after another after another.

not Butt hurt. And you still can't force a minister to marry an interracial couple, despite what loving said. All loving affected was the legal concept of marriage.

If you are charging as a point of sale (think drive-thru chapels in Vegas) you certainly cannot discriminate. So I don't know what the **** you are trying to say. And ministers performing ceremonies is different from bakers making a cake that is eaten after the ceremony. You keep trying to conflate the two because that's the only way you look less monstrous. But you are a monster. And a whiny little *****.

ou are the one making a distinction to prove your point, I am saying the distinction doesn't matter. Both parts celebrate the marriage.

LOL! So again, you move the goalposts! So now it's about "celebration" of the wedding...which has nothing to do with religious exercising because now we're talking about something that happens outside of the ceremony. So that's what, the fourth time you've redefined the parameters? I mean at this point, it's just sad the lengths you are going to justify bigotry.

Wall of text boils down to "I don't understand religious people, so **** them"

All one and the same. all a celebration of my marriage.

Appeal to authority.

You can't force any minister to do anything they don't want to. period, and free exercise is not limited to clergy

It is about honoring the union of two people, and in this case the union goes against the baker's morals.

 

[martybegan]

I didn't buy into it. I followed the story and when sufficient evidence was presented, dropped my interest in it.

But you did buy into it if you demanded "sufficient proof" Obama was born in Hawaii. So that means you didn't think he was born in America.

And why didn't you think that?

Because you're a racist.

I didn't demand anything. I followed the news, saw the BC and was like, OK, that settles it.

 

[martybegan]

The courts also ruled once that separate but equal was OK and Dred Scott was still a slave. your appeal to authority has no water with me.

My appeal to authority? You're the ones literally appealing to the authority of God to dictate who you bake cakes for!

I mean, seriously...is this for real? Did you seriously just post that in a thread where you are defending bigots appeal to God as the authority for baking cakes?

Wow. I think I'm actually speechless at the complete disconnect you have from what you just said, not to mention reality.

Again, not my place to demand people explain their religious practices, and not government's either without a compelling interest.

It's called a fun game of mind your own business, something you are unable to do.

 

[iceberg]

Again, that is your view. Theirs is different, and its their civil rights that are being violated in the name of "equality"

There aren't multiple "views" at play here. There is only the law, and the bigots' attempts to justify abrogating responsibility to the law. It's not up for debate that they violated the civil rights of gay people. They did. That's why they're in court. The debate that should happen is; how is baking a cake a religious act? You say they and you don't have to provide proof of any kind that it is, only that merely saying so makes it so. Well, that's not how the law works, the courts work, and society works. You don't get to invent things on the spot, pretend those things are the standard, all so you can justify your racism and/or bigotry. So how is baking a cake a religious act when there's no mention of it in the Bible, and the cake isn't even a part of the ceremony they "object" to based solely and only on their bigoted racist interpretation of what they think God thinks.

So it's like the Conservative trifecta: Narcissism, bigotry, and irresponsibility.

Just because you dismiss the point doesn't make it invalid.

What makes it invalid is how you refuse to provide anything to support it. You said yourself you don't have to. Really? Well, that's not what the courts said. So you can just claim any act is a religious one, right? Isn't that what you're doing? You do something wrong because you're a piece of shit, so you try to excuse it by throwing your hands up and saying "oh, it's religious exercising". When asked how it's religious exercising, your reply was "I don't have to say how, it just is". No. You have to say how. Otherwise, you're opening the door for any action against the law as being one of religious exercise. Which is bullshit because you just got done saying my examples of religious exercising aren't because they break the law. Well, discriminating against gay people is against the law too. You don't get a special exemption because you claim religion. Mostly because you refuse to even say how it is religious in the first place. And the fucked up thing is that I think you already know that. Yet you do it anyway. Which makes you a sophist and an asshole.

You are splitting hairs because you have no real argument past "I don't like these people, let government mess with them, fap fap fap fap"

How am I splitting hairs? Explain. I think you just spout off random shit because you think it makes you look more clever than you actually are. As I've said countless times, I don't care if you worship some magic cloud fairy. Just do it in the privacy of your home and in your church. Don't bring that shit to society where it can **** with the minds of children. We have to think of the children. We can't let them believe that you can justify any action by claiming religious freedom. Because that's how we got Jim Crow, among other stains.

You said you would rape my wife. Family member involved AND a proposed Criminal act.

No, what I said was that if I fucked your wife (consent wasn't even discussed), you can't get mad at her or me because I did so as a religious exercise. What you did, again, was exercise sophistry and lies and pretend that I said I raped her, when you and I both know that wasn't what I said, and we can even go back at the thread and look at what I said. So you deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to make yourself a victim. And you're not a sophist? LOL! whatever.

And a self defense claim is affirmative, and not a question of religious dogma..

According to you. And we know that you just make up accommodations whenever it suits your fluid, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting, parameter-redefining argument. You notice how inconsistent you are about what you believe? First you said baking a cake was a religious exercise. Then you said, "oh baking a cake for the ceremony is a religious exercise", then you said "oh baking a cake in celebration of the ceremony is a religious exercise" so in three posts you changed the context of what you said three times. And you're not a sophist? LOL...OK, pal...

How is getting a wedding cake from a particular vendor a civil right?

I support it with the constitution, which you choose to ignore because you hate religious people

And free exercise doesn't mean worship in the closet. You don't get to have the vapors just because you see a cross or see someone praying in public, or referencing their religion in their politics.

Family members are off limits, you broke the rules, and you are a terrible person.

Is sophism something your college professor just taught you about?

i googled it. came up empty.

so at this point, only cause he wants it to be.

he's a wlb.

for the topic itself, i tried to address it with him how come people could refuse service of their work to the trumps and of course, on queue he social sliced his way into making it happen and all be good and proper. that's about when i gave up. i don't think the baker did anything wrong. i don't think the gay couple is wrong. this is only an issue cause social justice warriors are running low on cecils and hambares.

 

[martybegan]

I am defending their right to free exercise only for contracted services.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, here we have a fifth re-definition of parameters. I mean at this point, it's just expected that you're going to move the goalposts from post to post. The contracted services they offer are through their public business, aren't they? So....you keep trying to make this distinction about point of sale, but that's unchanged if the bakery is a public accommodation. Doesn't matter if it's contractual or not. A receipt is a contract.

if they put a "gays not wanted" sign in front of their point of sale bakery I would not defend them at all..

Unless they claimed it was a religious exercise, right? Then you'd defend them.

that would be a PA violation. And your insults just show how weak your argument is. I was much angrier in the past, hell even a few weeks ago. Things recently in life have shown me the best way to handle useless people like you is to just let you vent, and counter your bullshit with reality

So marty, I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to avoid the big holes I poked in everything you said. I get why. You're a coward.

Argumentum ad absurdum, equating limits on government to no laws whatsoever.

But that's exactly what you did when you invoked Dred Scott to counter my appeal to authority while basing your entire argument around an appeal to an invisible authority when it comes to whom and why you're baking a cake.

And the thing is if you recognize that hypocrisy in your own argument, but still making the argument, I'm not sure that's any better than simply not recognizing the hypocrisy at all.

Nothing more than clarification. and a receipt is proof of a transaction, not a contract.

No, because once you deny point of sale you go beyond, to me, the protection of the free exercise clause. Using a Hotel as an example, a hotel shouldn't be able to deny anyone a room, as it is a generic use, can be a time-sensitive transaction, and is a true public accommodation. What they should be able to do is deny the use of one of its halls for any private by invitation only event it deems against their religious morals, as that is a contracted service, non-essential and not a true public accommodation

No, I'm rational and not a moron.

I invoked dread scott to counter your appeal to authority, the blanket "the court agrees with me so I win" fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

I notice it's always the low IQ people who ***** about IQ.

Do yourself a favor and learn something. You're not a very informed person. You like to pretend you are for the sake of your fellow troglodytes on this board, but you're not.

Yes, youtube videos by some snarky prick are the bestest source out there...

I am far more informed than you are.