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

[The Derp]

Um no, it's plain.

So none of those verses talk about baking cakes for parties. Nor that baking a cake for a party is a sin, either. You are trying to conflate baking a cake with homosexuality. So, the "interpretation" isn't there. You're just spitting out random verses while completely refusing to explain how any of that ties in to baking a cake for a party.

 

[The Derp]

When YOU set the standard of them "knowing" something, you make what they think in their head the proof.

They evangelize their religion by saying that "God forgives" and that "Jesus died for your sins". But here, you're saying that God won't forgive them for baking a cake. And since their God won't forgive them for baking a cake, they can't really go around proselytizing that their God forgives, can they?

 

[The Derp]

I don't know how you can prove that they are lying about what they think, but as that's YOUR argument, that proof is on YOU..

And they can't prove that is what they think as a result of their religious beliefs either. So since neither side can prove it, why make the accommodation at all?

 

[The Derp]

I've already told you that when you go on and on about off topic shit, that I just skim.
I don't remember reading you saying "boring" but I very well might have sort of seen it, and that prompted me to use it.
And, I don't know what you think is "suspicious" about that.

What's suspicious is that the use of that word didn't happen until after I used it. Which means you liked the concept of using it enough, but felt it necessary to plagiarize that concept in order to spin it back to me without reconciling the flaw in your own position that prompted to use of that description in the first place. Give credit where credit's due, is all.

THe difference is that I am not asking the government to prosecute you for having an opinion that I disagree with.

No, you're asking the government sanction discrimination along religious lines based on the "feelings" of people whose chief argument undermines their entire faith. I don't think they even realize they're doing it. But I think you do, which makes these responses from you that much more disappointing and hideous. You know the argument is bullshit, yet you're making it anyway. What's a good word to describe that? Sophistry.

You are very welcome to hate Christianity, and even Christians.

I don't know from where you get this impression. Maybe it's from the fact that I pulled at the thread that unravels the entire argument against gay cakes. Maybe it's from the fact that I pulled at the thread that unravels the entire argument about exercising religious liberty. As I've said, countless times, I think all religious are equally bad, and no one religion is better than the other. Because they all have the same fundamental flaw at their core; that I have to suspend disbelief in order to subscribe to a belief system. You expect me to suspend my disbelief at magic cloud fairies, so that you can discriminate against gays? **** you and **** your religion.

I think you are a bad person, because of it, but I am not trying to put you in jail.

Why? Because I point out the absurdity of worshiping a God that will forgive child molesters and the people that protect them, yet won't forgive someone for baking a cake. I can see how a whiny little ***** could interpret that as me being a bad person.

 

[The Derp]

Marty has already addressed the fact that worshiping allowed only in private is not Free Worship.

You're free to worship, I never said you weren't. But you are stretching the bounds of what "worship" means to broadly include wedding cakes. If you want to proselytize your faith, do so in private or in a church, where it belongs. Don't impose those primitive beliefs and values on the law, or society where plenty don't share them.

You did not respond to that obvious point, and just reasserted your position.

Wrong. I've been crystal clear about my thoughts on you evangelizing your faith. Keep it in the churches or your home, not in public where it offends me. You made the choice to be religious. If you don't think you have to defend that choice, then why did you make it in the first place?

That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion, and your point is invalid.

The assertion comes from those who say their interpretation of the Bible is a standard that can be arbitrarily applied as it suits your argument. You're not convincing me of it...you're convincing yourself because you rightfully acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the arguments you're making.

And dude, just saying, Marty is kicking your ass all over the place and you are making it easy for him.

If you feel you have to say that, then all it does is show how insecure you are.

 

[The Derp]

If they blow themselves up without harming anyone else or damaging someone else's property, it could be seen as free exercise. Once actual harm is done to something or someone else, though, that goes out the window. Interesting mental exercise.

So just like I said, you are establishing -on the fly- bizarre and arbitrary standards for what you, personally, perceive as justifiable religious law breaking. So I'm wondering why you're so keen on letting people violate the law because of religious action, yet not keen on violating religious "law" because of non-religious actions?

The answer is, of course, that you're a hypocrite.

More derpy repeated talking points. boring.

So then if they're just talking points you should be able to refute them. But you can't. In the end, it comes down to a "feeling" argument with you, which is weird because I thought liberals were the touchy-feely people, not the rugged Conservative individual tough guys. From where did I get these "talking points" anyway? All I'm doing is posing questions that seem to pull at the loose thread of faith, and that predictably upsets you. More of those "feelings"! Yeesh. Get over yourself.

Your posts reek of it. your need to insult religious people with your magic cloud fairy crap is the icing on the cake of your bigotry. And again, boo ******* hoo if you have to witness religious people doing religious things. does it give you the vapors, scarlett?

But God is a magic cloud fairy, is it not? And that's just a faith-based belief system, with no justification. I don't care if you worship a magic cloud fairy, a flying spaghetti monster, or a box of Triscuits. Faith is not a substitute for fact. Never has been, never will be. Keep it in the churches or in the privacy of your home, not in society where many don't share those views or beliefs. Boo-*******-hoo that you have to bake a cake for a party. Oh, woe is the poor bigot who has to do their job and make money. How awful.

 

[Correll]

When YOU set the standard of them "knowing" something, you make what they think in their head the proof.

They evangelize their religion by saying that "God forgives" and that "Jesus died for your sins". But here, you're saying that God won't forgive them for baking a cake. And since their God won't forgive them for baking a cake, they can't really go around proselytizing that their God forgives, can they?

Your disagreement with their theology does not deprive them of their right to freedom of religion.


All your discussion of their religion is irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

I don't know how you can prove that they are lying about what they think, but as that's YOUR argument, that proof is on YOU..

And they can't prove that is what they think as a result of their religious beliefs either. So since neither side can prove it, why make the accommodation at all?

You don't have to prove something to exercise a right.


You do have to prove something to put people in jail.


YOUR standard was based on what they think, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[The Derp]

Your disagreement with their theology does not deprive them of their right to freedom of religion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on. This isn't about me agreeing with the ideology, this is about the self-contradiction in their argument about their own ideology. Supposedly, their God forgives and Jesus died for your sins. But apparently, while God may forgive institutionalized child rape and the covering up of that, God doesn't forgive people for baking a cake for a party.

You avoid that thread pulling, understandably so. Because it completely undermines the argument you're making, not to mention the entire concept of faith as it relates to civil rights and gay cakes.

Does God not forgive? Shit, you better tell the Christians he doesn't because they all evangelize that God does. Kinda seems like false advertising, doesn't it? Gonna reconcile that? Nope. Because you're a piece of shit bigot.

 

[Correll]

I've already told you that when you go on and on about off topic shit, that I just skim.
I don't remember reading you saying "boring" but I very well might have sort of seen it, and that prompted me to use it.
And, I don't know what you think is "suspicious" about that.

What's suspicious is that the use of that word didn't happen until after I used it. Which means you liked the concept of using it enough, but felt it necessary to plagiarize that concept in order to spin it back to me without reconciling the flaw in your own position that prompted to use of that description in the first place. Give credit where credit's due, is all.

I might have been prompted to use the word, "boring" by your use of the word.

There, I gave you the credit you are due.

THe difference is that I am not asking the government to prosecute you for having an opinion that I disagree with.

No, you're asking the government sanction discrimination along religious lines based on the "feelings" of people whose chief argument undermines their entire faith. .... Sophistry.[/QUOTE]


The "sophistry" here is your defining the issue as though your opinion is fact.

You are very welcome to hate Christianity, and even Christians.

I don't know from where you get this impression. Maybe it's from the fact that I pulled at the thread that unravels the entire argument against gay cakes. Maybe it's from the fact that I pulled at the thread that unravels the entire argument about exercising religious liberty. As I've said, countless times, I think all religious are equally bad, and no one religion is better than the other. Because they all have the same fundamental flaw at their core; that I have to suspend disbelief in order to subscribe to a belief system. You expect me to suspend my disbelief at magic cloud fairies, so that you can discriminate against gays? **** you and **** your religion.[/QUOTE]


I get the idea that you hate Christianity and Christians by your constant need to belittle and insult them, not to mention your desire to jail them, and to deprive them of their right to religious freedom.


I have not asked you to "suspend disbelief".


You SHOULD be able to respect the rights of people you disagree with. If you are not a bad person.

I think you are a bad person, because of it, but I am not trying to put you in jail.

Why? Because I point out the absurdity of worshiping a God that will forgive child molesters and the people that protect them, yet won't forgive someone for baking a cake. I can see how a whiny little ***** could interpret that as me being a bad person.[/QUOTE]


No, because you are so full of hate.

Also, **** you.

 

[Correll]

Marty has already addressed the fact that worshiping allowed only in private is not Free Worship.

You're free to worship, I never said you weren't. But you are stretching the bounds of what "worship" means to broadly include wedding cakes. If you want to proselytize your faith, do so in private or in a church, where it belongs. Don't impose those primitive beliefs and values on the law, or society where plenty don't share them.

You've stated that you don't want them to "worship" in public. IF that wish of yours was enforced, that would be denying them their Right to Religious Freedom.

So, your pretend outrage over the right to have the cake you want, is revealed to be b.s.

You did not respond to that obvious point, and just reasserted your position.

Wrong. I've been crystal clear about my thoughts on you evangelizing your faith. Keep it in the churches or your home, not in public where it offends me. You made the choice to be religious. If you don't think you have to defend that choice, then why did you make it in the first place?[/QUOTE]


Your overly sensitive feelings do not trump their right to Religious Freedom.

That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion, and your point is invalid.

The assertion comes from those who say their interpretation of the Bible is a standard that can be arbitrarily applied as it suits your argument. You're not convincing me of it...you're convincing yourself because you rightfully acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the arguments you're making.[/QUOTE]

YOur cutting of my phrase out of context does not change the fact that you are the one that ignored the fact that Marty had already addressed your position and you failed to reply to that, and instead just re asserted your position.


That's a logical fallacy and your post is invalid.

And dude, just saying, Marty is kicking your ass all over the place and you are making it easy for him.

If you feel you have to say that, then all it does is show how insecure you are.[/QUOTE]



Mmm, no. If it were not True, then perhaps, "insecurity" might be a reason I said it.


But your claim that "insecurity" is the reason, is just you lying.


THe obvious reason I said it, was because it was true, and I wanted to laugh at you and your debating skills, or lack there off.


That you make an absurd claim that it could only be one reason, is dishonesty and insecurity on your part.


*****.

 

[Correll]

Your disagreement with their theology does not deprive them of their right to freedom of religion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on. This isn't about me agreeing with the ideology, this is about the self-contradiction in their argument about their own ideology. Supposedly, their God forgives and Jesus died for your sins. But apparently, while God may forgive institutionalized child rape and the covering up of that, God doesn't forgive people for baking a cake for a party.

You avoid that thread pulling, understandably so. Because it completely undermines the argument you're making, not to mention the entire concept of faith as it relates to civil rights and gay cakes.

Does God not forgive? Shit, you better tell the Christians he doesn't because they all evangelize that God does. Kinda seems like false advertising, doesn't it? Gonna reconcile that? Nope. Because you're a piece of shit bigot.

Got it. YOu disagree with Christian Dogma.


Noting in that implies any loss of Right to Religious Freedom by Christians.


It is pathetic that you are having such trouble understanding this simple concept.

 

[The Derp]

You don't have to prove something to exercise a right.

That's a pretty broad statement. Are you sure you want to make that your position? I mean really, really sure?

You do have to prove something to put people in jail.

Discrimination can be proven very easily. Why shouldn't people go to jail for discrimination?

YOUR standard was based on what they think, so the burden of proof is on you.

Exactly! It's based on what they think (they, being the Christians). But what they think is rife with contradictions, isn't it? So you're saying that Christians don't think God forgives? Why are they evangelizing that God does? Isn't that just false advertising?

 

[The Derp]

Got it. YOu disagree with Christian Dogma..

Saying "God forgives" to lure people to the religion, then coming right back and saying God doesn't forgive isn't something I agree or disagree with because that's just marketing.

So you're trying to make this about me agreeing with their beliefs, but it's not even about that. What it's about is the inherent contradiction in what Christians evangelize vs. what they do. If God forgives and Jesus died for your sins, why wouldn't God forgive you for baking a cake for a party? And if God doesn't forgive you for that, why are you evangelizing your faith that God does? And if that's the case, why even worship God at all???

 

[Correll]

You don't have to prove something to exercise a right.

That's a pretty broad statement. Are you sure you want to make that your position? I mean really, really sure?

Pretty sure. IF you want to post what you think is an exception, how about something similar to the topic of bakers?

You do have to prove something to put people in jail.

Discrimination can be proven very easily. Why shouldn't people go to jail for discrimination?[/QUOTE]


Really? You think discrimination can be easily proven? Or are you just fine with kangaroo courts?

YOUR standard was based on what they think, so the burden of proof is on you.

Exactly! It's based on what they think (they, being the Christians). But what they think is rife with contradictions, isn't it? So you're saying that Christians don't think God forgives? Why are they evangelizing that God does? Isn't that just false advertising?[/QUOTE]


I said what I meant. It was not confusing.


YOUR standard for jail was that they "knowingly" broke the law.


NOthing about your negative opinion of Christianity is relevant to their Right to REligious Freedom.

 

[The Derp]

Got it. YOu disagree with Christian Dogma.
Noting in that implies any loss of Right to Religious Freedom by Christians.
It is pathetic that you are having such trouble understanding this simple concept.

You Christians just love to be victims. But you haven't been victims since the days the Romans would throw you to the lions. That was 2,000 years ago. You're not victims anymore. Get over yourself.

 

[Correll]

Got it. YOu disagree with Christian Dogma..

Saying "God forgives" to lure people to the religion, then coming right back and saying God doesn't forgive isn't something I agree or disagree with because that's just marketing.

So you're trying to make this about me agreeing with their beliefs, but it's not even about that. What it's about is the inherent contradiction in what Christians evangelize vs. what they do. If God forgives and Jesus died for your sins, why wouldn't God forgive you for baking a cake for a party? And if God doesn't forgive you for that, why are you evangelizing your faith that God does? And if that's the case, why even worship God at all???

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with their religious beliefs.


I have been very clear that your opinion on those beliefs is completely irrelevant to their rights.


I consider Buddism to be nonsense, but I do not believe that my opinion on that in any way detracts from a Buddist's right to religious freedom.

 

[Correll]

Got it. YOu disagree with Christian Dogma.
Noting in that implies any loss of Right to Religious Freedom by Christians.
It is pathetic that you are having such trouble understanding this simple concept.

You Christians just love to be victims. But you haven't been victims since the days the Romans would throw you to the lions. That was 2,000 years ago. You're not victims anymore. Get over yourself.

You lefties fined the shit out of some one for not baking a cake.


That victimizing them.


And you are open about wanting to deprive them of the right to practice their religion openly in public.


You are the bigot here.

 

[The Derp]

Pretty sure. IF you want to post what you think is an exception, how about something similar to the topic of bakers?

Alright, then. It's your belief system's funeral, so here we go:

In order for you to claim that baking a cake is a religious act, you first have to prove that your God said anything as such in the Bible. And a search on that topic comes up empty. Secondly, you need to prove harm to your religious beliefs, which is impossible because your religious beliefs dictate that God forgives all sinners and Jesus died for your sins. So baking a cake for a party, whether you think it's a sin or not, is forgiven by the God you worship. And if the God you worship forgives you for baking that cake, then you have no proof you've been harmed.

Your belief system itself undermines its own rhetoric. You're trying to have it both ways; saying God forgives, but that God doesn't. Then arbitrarily imposing a standard of your own construct to what God forgives. Which is pretty ******* presumptuous and narcissistic. All in service of an inherently bigoted position than comes not from religion, but from your own personal sexual repression and insecurities. So congratulations, you've managed to make yet another topic all about you and your feelings. Get over yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Really? You think discrimination can be easily proven? Or are you just fine with kangaroo courts?

So then you don't believe in our Judicial system, then. Which means you don't believe in the fundamentals of our democracy and the three branches of government that provide checks and balances. So since you believe all that shit, then you'd be un-American and anti-democratic. Instead, you are a theocrat. You seek to impose religious law over state law, which is basically Sharia. Thing is, pal, not everyone subscribes to you flawed belief system, so why should laws based on your stupid religion apply to those who don't share your belief in your bigoted, maybe-will-forgive-but-maybe-won't-we're-not-sure-because-the-standard-changes belief system. So throw religion out of the equation and you're just left with people. Some of whom have a personal abhorrence of sexuality that is informed by their belief system, which they seek to impose on everyone.

So how are you any different than the mullahs who want Sharia Law? Because your God is white and theirs is brown?