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

[The Derp]

I don't question people's religious beliefs because I don't care about them, and am not looking for an excuse to deprive them of their rights, like you are.

Oh how mistaken and wrong you are. I'm not questioning their religious beliefs, I'm questioning the sincerity of those beliefs. I think that the bigotry came first, and the religious justification came after. Which proves these bigots are just trash people with inherent hatred they're looking to justify so they can feel better about being bigoted fuckheads. And you go along with it, why?

 

[The Derp]

No, you are the one that wants to put people in jail for not baking a cake.

Exactly. You break the law with ill intent, you should pay a hefty price for doing so. A fine is too good for these people. They need some time to sit in a cell and think about how insincere they are about their faith.

And your bigotry and your desire to force the Free Practice of Religion from the Public Square shows that you are worse than that.

Since when is baking a cake "practicing religion"? When has a cake been involved in religious ceremonies? Never. The bigotry came first, then the insincere justification for it followed.

I don't question their faith, I question the sincerity of their faith. There are plenty of Christians who don't have a problem baking gay cakes. So are they not Christians? Or are the bigoted bakers not Christians? Only one of those two groups is insincere and it's not the "love they neighbor" folks...

 

[martybegan]

I support their right to their position.

But it's not a position they have a right to...that's what you don't seem to get. You seem to think that anyone claiming "religious freedumb" has license to do as they wish, and that's incorrect. They don't. Throw on top of that the clear insincerity of their faith and what we have is a picture of someone looking for an excuse to be a bigot and hiding behind their dogma that they refuse to defend. That's not religious liberty, it's bullshit.

Personally if I was a baker I would not feel the need to refuse working a SSM wedding. And Again, I don't care about why they don't want to do it, that's for them to figure out.

Personally, I don't give a shit that you are trying to have it both ways.

Again, not my call to make, nor yours, nor governments, without a compelling government interest.

Actually, yes, it is our call to make. Using "religious freedumb" to justify bigotry is an easy call to make because this country went through it 50-60 years ago...that's what led to Loving v. Virginia and the Civil Rights Act. Christians using faith to justify Jim Crow. Just like you're doing today. I am not only questioning the dogma but also the sincerity behind those dogmatic beliefs. I don't think they're being sincere...simply because they are Christians and being a Christian means you believe and accept that God forgives and Jesus died for your sins.

If you're told by a Roman soldier to walk with him a mile and carry his gear, walk with him two. If you're given an order for a wedding cake for a gay marriage, bake two. Love and forgive your enemies and show them extraordinary grace, because Matthew 5:46-47: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

Scripture. Boom.

More of the same bull of you not being able to fathom another's viewpoint, due to your small little progressive mind..

Viewpoint? I thought this was about dogma. So now dogma is a viewpoint that is treated with the same respect as viewpoints not based on dogma? Wow, quite the standard you've set for yourself. Let's see if that shit holds up on closer inspection:

The "viewpoint" (not dogma anymore...just another goalpost shift on your part) is that their religious beliefs dictate that baking a gay cake is a sin. Yet their "viewpoint" is also that God forgives and Jesus died for your sins. So you see the contradiction in that argument? That's why I doubt its sincerity.

The question is not material to the discussion. Talk to someone who believes that SSM is a sin for an answer to that.

You're the one defending them, so you are the one I'm talking to. if you're now saying that you aren't informed enough to have these answers why the **** are you defending the position on this thread?

[/QUOTE]

All of that is your opinion. Luckily we have the 1st amendment to protect them from you using government to enforce your opinion.

Defending someone else's rights even if you disagree with them is not having it both ways.

Who cares about scripture? I'm defending a constitutional principle here.

Again, not material to the argument.

I'm defending their rights, not their positions. Again, I know it's hard for you to grasp that.

 

[martybegan]

Nah, as long as they have the 1st amendment to fall back on I don't care about their reasons, and government shouldn't either without a compelling interest otherwise.

Sincerity of religious beliefs isn't a first amendment issue. Try again. I am saying their "religious freedumb" argument is insincere since their own faith and dogma contradicts it.

And now you're reduced to just blindly and generally throwing out things to defend yourself. How is baking a cake a first amendment issue? It isn't. It's not a constitutional issue, it's a baking issue. Ascribing some sort of religious connotation to it is bullshit, and you know it. That's what makes this whole thing incredibly stupid; you know your position is wrong, yet you make it anyway. That says a lot about you as a human being...namely that you're a piece of shit who blindly accepts what podunk, white trash, bigoted redneck assholes tell you about faith. You accept what they say without question. So it's hard to see how you're not an enabler of bigotry in this scenario.

Again, don't care, don't see a compelling government interest to stop them. That's as simple as it gets.

Discrimination is a compelling interest. You clearly think gays can be discriminated against. Why do you think that? Obviously the answer is that you're a bigot, but not a brave enough one to come out. Just a whiny little chickenshit *****.

And attempted poisoning is a crime, and thus a compelling interest and thus not protected.

Is it? Discrimination is a crime too and that doesn't stop religious people from using their dogma to justify it. So why couldn't a baker poison a cake and claim it was an act of "religious freedumb"? If they're not willing to bake a cake, why would they not be willing to poison someone?

Again, not material to the discussion.

Discrimination that results in actual harm is compelling. discrimination that results in butt hurt is not.

It isn't a crime, it is a civil violation, and then only should be if actual harm can be shown. Harm, not butt hurt.

 

[The Derp]

You say that, but I don't believe you. (and why should I? You shown yourself to be a liar)

Say what? That all religions are equally stupid? Take a look back on this thread, you clown, and try again. I know I've said it at least three times in three different places. So now you're moving to whiny little ***** victimhood land. Where you are so oppressed and put down upon because you defend bigoted and insincere arguments and actions.

Get the **** over yourself. No one cares about you enough to worry about your sensitivities. Grow a pair, already.

I think you hate Christianity, because Christianity is a problem for your marxist agenda.

**** you. I don't just hate Christianity, I hate all religion. So swap in Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, whatever for Christianity and my position is unchanged. That's because I have principles, not like you who has none to speak of. Your principles are the principles of the folks you're defending. Unless it makes you look bad, then they're not, right?

Fuckin' poseur. Whiny little ***** move, there.

II think you are FINE with religion when it helps your agenda.

As I've said, countless times on this thread -and for at least a fourth time now- I think all religions are equally stupid. So pick whatever religion you'd like, my position doesn't change. That's because I have principles. You clearly don't. That's because you're a piece of shit whose parents did a garbage job raising you. So this is as much their fault as yours.

Bet you never once had a problem with Rev Wright, did you?

OHHHH lawdy! Reverend Wright! You've hit the Conservative bingo with that one. My problem with Rev Wright is the same problem with you, the bigots you're defending, and all religious people; that their faith is an artificial construct and limits critical thinking while promoting Stone Age ideas and bigotry. **** you. **** your religion. **** your beliefs.

 

[Correll]

No, you are the one that wants to put people in jail for not baking a cake.

Exactly. You break the law with ill intent, you should pay a hefty price for doing so. A fine is too good for these people. They need some time to sit in a cell and think about how insincere they are about their faith.

And your bigotry and your desire to force the Free Practice of Religion from the Public Square shows that you are worse than that.

Since when is baking a cake "practicing religion"? When has a cake been involved in religious ceremonies? Never. The bigotry came first, then the insincere justification for it followed.

I don't question their faith, I question the sincerity of their faith. There are plenty of Christians who don't have a problem baking gay cakes. So are they not Christians? Or are the bigoted bakers not Christians? Only one of those two groups is insincere and it's not the "love they neighbor" folks...

While NOT agreeing with your bigoted and hate filled opinion,

I challenge you to support your premise that "sincerity" is required to have religious freedom.

 

[Correll]

You say that, but I don't believe you. (and why should I? You shown yourself to be a liar)

Say what? That all religions are equally stupid? Take a look back on this thread, you clown, and try again. I know I've said it at least three times in three different places. So now you're moving to whiny little ***** victimhood land. Where you are so oppressed and put down upon because you defend bigoted and insincere arguments and actions.

Get the **** over yourself. No one cares about you enough to worry about your sensitivities. Grow a pair, already.

I think you hate Christianity, because Christianity is a problem for your marxist agenda.

**** you. I don't just hate Christianity, I hate all religion. So swap in Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, whatever for Christianity and my position is unchanged. That's because I have principles, not like you who has none to speak of. Your principles are the principles of the folks you're defending. Unless it makes you look bad, then they're not, right?

Fuckin' poseur. Whiny little ***** move, there.

II think you are FINE with religion when it helps your agenda.

As I've said, countless times on this thread -and for at least a fourth time now- I think all religions are equally stupid. So pick whatever religion you'd like, my position doesn't change. That's because I have principles. You clearly don't. That's because you're a piece of shit whose parents did a garbage job raising you. So this is as much their fault as yours.

Bet you never once had a problem with Rev Wright, did you?

OHHHH lawdy! Reverend Wright! You've hit the Conservative bingo with that one. My problem with Rev Wright is the same problem with you, the bigots you're defending, and all religious people; that their faith is an artificial construct and limits critical thinking while promoting Stone Age ideas and bigotry. **** you. **** your religion. **** your beliefs.

So, can you show any threads where you've attacked any other religion or any Christians that were helpful to your marxist agenda, with similar hatred and bile to what you've shown here?


Cause, I'm not finding your claim credible, lefty.

 

[The Derp]

All of that is your opinion. Luckily we have the 1st amendment to protect them from you using government to enforce your opinion.

Wait a second...it's their opinion that baking a cake is somehow a violation of their religious beliefs. They do so without proof. Your avoidance here is very telling. I think it's because you recognize this isn't even a belief issue now, it's a sincerity issue. The sincerity grounds seems to be one you're not entirely steady on, nor is it one that relates to the first amendment.

So you say they say it's their religious freedumb, yet you don't question the sincerity of that religious belief. Seems to me that the bigotry came first, and the religious justifications for that bigotry followed.

So let's cast aside that they have the opinion that baking a cake violates their religious freedumb, and investigate the sincerity behind that belief. So this is where the point of God's forgiveness comes into play. Apparently, God's forgiveness isn't a part of their dogma which is bizarre since the entire point of Christianity is that God forgives. There's no disagreement on that point because that's what they evangelize. Are you now denying that is what they evangelize? So since they evangelize that sincerely, the arguments they make that God doesn't forgive can't be sincere arguments, can they? And if so, how?

All you do is fall back on 1A without even bothering to explain how any of this relates to the 1A. It doesn't. That's why those bakers are in court, and why they've lost every court appearance thus far.

Defending someone else's rights even if you disagree with them is not having it both ways.

So you're trying to conflate religious rights with sincerity. That by virtue of having faith, everything following is sincere. I'm saying that's a pretty big presumption to make, given the history. I question the sincerity of their religious beliefs. I don't think they or you can prove these beliefs are sincere because the beliefs came after the bigotry, not before, as justification for bigotry. So the inherent position is that they know they're being bigots, but they justify it by hiding behind the skirt of "religious freedumb" that you define so broadly, you might as well not even use the term at all.

Who cares about scripture? I'm defending a constitutional principle here.

I thought the whole reason they refuse to bake a cake is because of their scripture. Now you're saying it isn't? Your position on this seems to be all over the place, and ever-changing depending on how badly you've painted yourself into the corner with your rhetoric. So you pretend this is a Constitutional issue, but we both know it's not because if it was, there would be sincerity behind their religious beliefs. But there obviously isn't since you're all trying to have it both ways; God forgives and God doesn't. That screams insincerity to me. And I think it does to you too, which is why you avoid it and try to make this a Constitutional issue. You're right...it is a Constitutional issue...a 14th Amendment issue, not a 1st Amendment one.

Again, not material to the argument.I'm defending their rights, not their positions. Again, I know it's hard for you to grasp that.

Because you say so? No, that's not how debate works. What's immaterial to the argument is you screeching like a whiny little ***** that I'm not going after Islam on this thread about Christian bakers.

 

[otto105]

The big problem for the Democrats constantly calling mainstream people bigots is that the Democratic Party is full of racist and bigots, not the GOP.

violent bigot Antifa Rioters, creepy terrorist sympathizers, sanctuary cities for illegal alien criminals, Klan, Nation of Islam, La Raza, Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood, racist Aztlán Nationalist, racist BLM separatist, CAIR, LULAC, Mecha, Obama, Louis Gutierrez, Al Sharpton .......

What party is Dave duke in?

 

[martybegan]

All of that is your opinion. Luckily we have the 1st amendment to protect them from you using government to enforce your opinion.

Wait a second...it's their opinion that baking a cake is somehow a violation of their religious beliefs. They do so without proof. Your avoidance here is very telling. I think it's because you recognize this isn't even a belief issue now, it's a sincerity issue. The sincerity grounds seems to be one you're not entirely steady on, nor is it one that relates to the first amendment.

So you say they say it's their religious freedumb, yet you don't question the sincerity of that religious belief. Seems to me that the bigotry came first, and the religious justifications for that bigotry followed.

So let's cast aside that they have the opinion that baking a cake violates their religious freedumb, and investigate the sincerity behind that belief. So this is where the point of God's forgiveness comes into play. Apparently, God's forgiveness isn't a part of their dogma which is bizarre since the entire point of Christianity is that God forgives. There's no disagreement on that point because that's what they evangelize. Are you now denying that is what they evangelize? So since they evangelize that sincerely, the arguments they make that God doesn't forgive can't be sincere arguments, can they? And if so, how?

All you do is fall back on 1A without even bothering to explain how any of this relates to the 1A. It doesn't. That's why those bakers are in court, and why they've lost every court appearance thus far.

Defending someone else's rights even if you disagree with them is not having it both ways.

So you're trying to conflate religious rights with sincerity. That by virtue of having faith, everything following is sincere. I'm saying that's a pretty big presumption to make, given the history. I question the sincerity of their religious beliefs. I don't think they or you can prove these beliefs are sincere because the beliefs came after the bigotry, not before, as justification for bigotry. So the inherent position is that they know they're being bigots, but they justify it by hiding behind the skirt of "religious freedumb" that you define so broadly, you might as well not even use the term at all.

Who cares about scripture? I'm defending a constitutional principle here.

I thought the whole reason they refuse to bake a cake is because of their scripture. Now you're saying it isn't? Your position on this seems to be all over the place, and ever-changing depending on how badly you've painted yourself into the corner with your rhetoric. So you pretend this is a Constitutional issue, but we both know it's not because if it was, there would be sincerity behind their religious beliefs. But there obviously isn't since you're all trying to have it both ways; God forgives and God doesn't. That screams insincerity to me. And I think it does to you too, which is why you avoid it and try to make this a Constitutional issue. You're right...it is a Constitutional issue...a 14th Amendment issue, not a 1st Amendment one.

Again, not material to the argument.I'm defending their rights, not their positions. Again, I know it's hard for you to grasp that.

Because you say so? No, that's not how debate works. What's immaterial to the argument is you screeching like a whiny little ***** that I'm not going after Islam on this thread about Christian bakers.

Not material, Tl;dr

Don't care

The 14th doesn't negate the 1st.

Blah blah blah...

 

[The Derp]

Again, not material to the discussion.

You're the one who brought it up, now you're saying it's not germane only because you realized it undercuts your case.

Whiny little ***** move, there.

Discrimination that results in actual harm is compelling. discrimination that results in butt hurt is not..

Sincerity is compelling. These bakers aren't sincere and neither are you. And denyong someone service because of who they are is the harm. What is butthurt is Conservatives and Christians claiming their God won't forgive them for baking a cake and that makes them feel bad. wah.

The butthurt seems to come from you people who whine like little bitches that bigots have to pay a price for their bigotry. Oh, woe are the poor bigots who are butt hurt because the courts don't accept their insincere bullshit argument.

Why the **** should I or anyone accept that their beliefs are sincere?

It isn't a crime, it is a civil violation, and then only should be if actual harm can be shown. Harm, not butt hurt.

Violating civil rights is a crime. Period. The harm is the denial of service to someone because of your bullshit insincere beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Again, not material to the discussion.

You're the one who brought it up, now you're saying it's not germane only because you realized it undercuts your case.

Whiny little ***** move, there.

Discrimination that results in actual harm is compelling. discrimination that results in butt hurt is not..

Sincerity is compelling. These bakers aren't sincere and neither are you. And denyong someone service because of who they are is the harm. What is butthurt is Conservatives and Christians claiming their God won't forgive them for baking a cake and that makes them feel bad. wah.

The butthurt seems to come from you people who whine like little bitches that bigots have to pay a price for their bigotry. Oh, woe are the poor bigots who are butt hurt because the courts don't accept their insincere bullshit argument.

Why the **** should I or anyone accept that their beliefs are sincere?

It isn't a crime, it is a civil violation, and then only should be if actual harm can be shown. Harm, not butt hurt.

Violating civil rights is a crime. Period. The harm is the denial of service to someone because of your bullshit insincere beliefs.

I'm arguing constitutional rights, you are trying to debate dogma I don't care about.

The harm is when government forces you to do something you don't want to over someone else's hurt feelings.

There is no civil right to a specific wedding cake

 

[The Derp]

You are still a hater, and you are still just trying to justify your desire to take away religious freedom.

You have yet to prove religious freedom entails cakes and baking. You've also failed to prove the sincerity of these religious beliefs, which feel like slap-dash, hap-hazard justifications after the fact.

And you claimed you were a bigot against all religions. Yet, when I asked you for a link where you were as hateful towards Islam, you ignored my request.

Here ya go you shit-sipping, child-molesting, bigoted, racist, discriminatory, cowardly douche. Here are four posts from September 7th, alone:

Post #1
Post #2
Post #3
Post #4

And here's a broader search in search terms that turned up a total of 16 instances of me saying "all religions are...".

I can't help it that you're a lazy ******* nobody who is too stupid, blind, ignorant, or apathetic to do the work. You clearly have to have someone do everything for you because you're incapable of doing so yourself. That's because, as I've said, your parents did a shit job raising you.

Unlike you, I walk the walk. You're just a lazy, good-for-nothing, shiftless layabout who needs a nanny to help you navigate basic things as an adult.

I expect an apology for you being a lazy ****.

 

[Correll]

You are still a hater, and you are still just trying to justify your desire to take away religious freedom.

You have yet to prove religious freedom entails cakes and baking. You've also failed to prove the sincerity of these religious beliefs, which feel like slap-dash, hap-hazard justifications after the fact.

And you claimed you were a bigot against all religions. Yet, when I asked you for a link where you were as hateful towards Islam, you ignored my request.

Here ya go you shit-sipping, child-molesting, bigoted, racist, discriminatory, cowardly douche. Here are four posts from September 7th, alone:

Post #1
Post #2
Post #3
Post #4

And here's a broader search in search terms that turned up a total of 16 instances of me saying "all religions are...".

I can't help it that you're a lazy ******* nobody who is too stupid, blind, ignorant, or apathetic to do the work. You clearly have to have someone do everything for you because you're incapable of doing so yourself. That's because, as I've said, your parents did a shit job raising you.

Unlike you, I walk the walk. You're just a lazy, good-for-nothing, shiftless layabout who needs a nanny to help you navigate basic things as an adult.

I expect an apology for you being a lazy ****.

Saying you hate all religions is not the same as DEMONSTRATING it as you have with your hatred of Christianity with page after page of hate and bigotry.


Show me that or stfu.

 

[The Derp]

I don't question people's religious beliefs because I don't care about them, and am not looking for an excuse to deprive them of their rights, like you are..

You'e looking for an excuse to deprive others of their rights within the context of bullshit insincere religious beliefs. The fact that you don't question their beliefs means you're seeking a confirmation bias. Which is a whiny little ***** move.

I am not doubting their religious beliefs...I am doubting the sincerity of those beliefs. I think they're fakers. I think they're just pretending to be Christians for the sake of discriminating against gay people. And I've yet to see a compelling case otherwise, least of all from you.

Your bigotry and hatred are noted.

You act like this is an insult to me. It's not. I proudly am bigoted against religion for all the reasons you're giving in defense of their bigotry. And because I think they're a bunch of fakers who are insincere about their faith.

 

[Correll]

I don't question people's religious beliefs because I don't care about them, and am not looking for an excuse to deprive them of their rights, like you are..

You'e looking for an excuse to deprive others of their rights within the context of bullshit insincere religious beliefs. The fact that you don't question their beliefs means you're seeking a confirmation bias. Which is a whiny little ***** move.

I am not doubting their religious beliefs...I am doubting the sincerity of those beliefs. I think they're fakers. I think they're just pretending to be Christians for the sake of discriminating against gay people. And I've yet to see a compelling case otherwise, least of all from you.

Your bigotry and hatred are noted.

You act like this is an insult to me. It's not. I proudly am bigoted against religion for all the reasons you're giving in defense of their bigotry. And because I think they're a bunch of fakers who are insincere about their faith.

I don't see the Right to have a cake baked by a certain baker in the constitution.


Your pride in your hatred, really shows that I am right, in that you are a bad person.

 

[The Derp]

While NOT agreeing with your bigoted and hate filled opinion,

So I'm interested to know how and why you think these people's religious beliefs are sincere. What is the bar by which you're measuring that standard? Does the bar even exist? We already know you accept blindly what religious people tell you because...because...I don't know why. You don't blindly accept what radical islamists tell you, so why would you blindly accept what radical Christians would? The answer is obvious; you're a bigot.

I challenge you to support your premise that "sincerity" is required to have religious freedom.

OK, simple...if they are sincerely Christians, then that means they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, and that he died on the cross for their sins. If they are telling me their religious beliefs are harmed by baking a cake, I would ask "how"? If the answer to that question is anything other than "God does not forgive", then their religious beliefs aren't sincere, and it's all bullshit. It's really that simple.

 

[The Derp]

So, can you show any threads where you've attacked any other religion or any Christians that were helpful to your marxist agenda, with similar hatred and bile to what you've shown here?.

Again, I say all religions are equally bad. I am not singling out Islam because there aren't muslims on this thread defending religious bigotry, just you shitty Christians.

I'd say the same thing to any religion that seeks to use insincerity to justify bigotry. The only reason I'm singling out Christians is because that is what we are talking about.

So what the **** does Islam have to do with Christians refusing to bake a cake? Nothing. This is just you feeling like shit about yourself and what you're defending, so you have this compulsion to drag everyone else down in the mud with you. But guess what, if they're religious they're already down in the mud with you. SO this is just about you being "butt hurt" because you can't defend insincere Christians. Why? Because you are a piece of shit and so are they.

 

[The Derp]

The 14th doesn't negate the 1st.

It's not even a 1A issue at all because the religious beliefs these people have isn't sincere. So that's how it becomes a 14A issue because there is no sincerity in the religious belief, just discrimination and bigotry.

 

[Correll]

While NOT agreeing with your bigoted and hate filled opinion,

So I'm interested to know how and why you think these people's religious beliefs are sincere. What is the bar by which you're measuring that standard? Does the bar even exist? We already know you accept blindly what religious people tell you because...because...I don't know why. You don't blindly accept what radical islamists tell you, so why would you blindly accept what radical Christians would? The answer is obvious; you're a bigot.

I generally don't question people about their religoius beliefs AND as I said, that is irrelevant unless you can show that sincerity is required by the constitution.

And you are the bigot here, not me.

I challenge you to support your premise that "sincerity" is required to have religious freedom.

OK, simple...if they are sincerely Christians, then that means they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, and that he died on the cross for their sins. If they are telling me their religious beliefs are harmed by baking a cake, I would ask "how"? If the answer to that question is anything other than "God does not forgive", then their religious beliefs aren't sincere, and it's all bullshit. It's really that simple.[/QUOTE]


That does not support your premise that "sincerity" is required to have Religious Freedom.

Not at all.