Why Do Atheists Misrepresent Biblical Law as Current Law?

[alang1216]

Another example would be the Democrats and their flipping on their own beliefs about free speech. Berkley was the founding movement in these latter days concerning free speech. Now, they want to silence free speech they don't agree with. Now, the Democrats want to establish a disinformation bureaucracy Czar to silence conservative republican speech. We have the 1st amendment but Democrats don't want to follow it.

The 1st was never a free pass to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, and to whoever you wanted. From day one there were restrictions on 'free' speech. If you want to debate the restrictions, that is another matter. If you believe people should have the right to tell lies, no matter the cost to others or the country, you lost me.

 

[Cougarbear]

The 1st was never a free pass to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, and to whoever you wanted. From day one there were restrictions on 'free' speech. If you want to debate the restrictions, that is another matter. If you believe people should have the right to tell lies, no matter the cost to others or the country, you lost me.

Who is the decision maker of what is a lie or what is true? Nina Jankowicz? She said Hunter's laptop was fake and Russian disinformation and it turned out to be all true and not Russian disinformation. The 1st amendment protects the right of people to lie or tell the truth and not be limited by the Government. Also, The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Private companies can have rules against it. The question is if social media companies who sway government elections should also be required to allow all sides of issues to be heard or not.

 

[alang1216]

Who is the decision maker of what is a lie or what is true? Nina Jankowicz? She said Hunter's laptop was fake and Russian disinformation and it turned out to be all true and not Russian disinformation.

I'm actually not convinced of that but hopefully the whole truth will come out. But if it turns out that Hunter was corrupt and trying to profit on his dad, I would not be at all surprised.

The 1st amendment protects the right of people to lie or tell the truth and not be limited by the Government.

There are slander and libel laws that say I can't call you a pedophile without evidence.

Also, The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Private companies can have rules against it. The question is if social media companies who sway government elections should also be required to allow all sides of issues to be heard or not.

Would that apply to Fox News, OANN, and Breitbart too?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You misunderstood. 3% of the LGBTQ's in the U.S. should have the basic human rights the other 97% have. However, that does not include forcing the other 97% to do things they perceive to be evil like baking what they perceive as sick cakes for sick people. And, the SCOTUS agrees.

Do you know about public accommodation laws?

What you're saying is that racists should not have to serve black people, or Asians, or foreigners. That religious people shouldn't have to serve non-religious people or people of other religions.

What you're saying is that segregation should be brought back.

That racism should be allowed to flourish.

 

[Meriweather]

Do you know about public accommodation laws?

What you're saying is that racists should not have to serve black people, or Asians, or foreigners. That religious people shouldn't have to serve non-religious people or people of other religions.

What you're saying is that segregation should be brought back.

That racism should be allowed to flourish.

Not at all. It is a matter of going to the business that serves your desires or needs. A Jewish deli should not be required to provide ham. A cake decorator or a photographer should not be required to provide pictures or decorations they do not sell.

Anyone can go into a bakery and buy any cake they wish. If the decorations they want are not available at that place, find someone or some place they are available. Slavery ended a long time ago, and no one is the Master or Dictator of what any business shall do or provide.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not at all. It is a matter of going to the business that serves your desires or needs. A Jewish deli should not be required to provide ham. A cake decorator or a photographer should not be required to provide pictures or decorations they do not sell.

Anyone can go into a bakery and buy any cake they wish. If the decorations they want are not available at that place, find someone or some place they are available. Slavery ended a long time ago, and no one is the Master or Dictator of what any business shall do or provide.

There's a difference here between a Jewish deli providing ham, and a company saying they do something, and then only doing it for certain people.

If this bakery said "WE DO NOT DO SPECIAL CAKES" and then the gay people came and said "can you do a special cake?" "no, sorry sir, we don't do that."

Instead it was "Can you do a special cake?" "No, **** you, you're gay, we won't do it because we think you're dirty and disgusting people, **** off".

Do you see the difference?

 

[Meriweather]

Do you see the difference?

The difference is in the kinds of words and decorations provided on the cake. Anyone can purchase the types of cake they do make.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The difference is in the kinds of words and decorations provided on the cake. Anyone can purchase the types of cake they do make.

The thing is, either you do a service or you don't.

These people wanted to do a service, but not for these people.

But I guess you'll want people to be able to express their bigotry and make people feel like third class citizens in their own country, just like how it used to be, hey?

 

[Meriweather]

The thing is, either you do a service or you don't.

Correct. If a bakery doesn't provide a service for certain kinds of wedding cakes, then it doesn't, just like if a deli doesn't provide a certain kind of meat, it doesn't. Find the business that does, not the one that does not. Simple.

 

[AsherN]

Correct. If a bakery doesn't provide a service for certain kinds of wedding cakes, then it doesn't, just like if a deli doesn't provide a certain kind of meat, it doesn't. Find the business that does, not the one that does not. Simple.

Thing is, the bakery did provide made to order wedding cakes. They could have said they did not carry the figurine they wanted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct. If a bakery doesn't provide a service for certain kinds of wedding cakes, then it doesn't, just like if a deli doesn't provide a certain kind of meat, it doesn't. Find the business that does, not the one that does not. Simple.

No, what you've said is not "Correct". You can't say "we don't provide a service for black people". "We don't do black people's wedding cakes".

You either provide a service, like cakes, or you don't provide a service like cakes.

It's not "Simple". Segregation was gotten rid of a long time ago and yes, we know a lot of fuckers want to bring it back, but it's not going to happen. What you're suggesting brings it back. Do you want segregation?

 

[Meriweather]

No, what you've said is not "Correct". You can't say "we don't provide a service for black people". "We don't do black people's wedding cakes".

This is not, "We don't serve ______ people." It is a, "We don't make the kind of cake you want." I am certain the bakery would sell the couple a plain wedding cake and that couple could decorate it and use it as they please. It is simple and there is no need to complicate anything involving a cake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is not, "We don't serve ______ people." It is a, "We don't make the kind of cake you want." I am certain the bakery would sell the couple a plain wedding cake and that couple could decorate it and use it as they please. It is simple and there is no need to complicate anything involving a cake.

But it's not, is it?

They're not saying "we don't do personalized cakes", they do. Either you do personalized cakes, or you don't.

You want it to be simple, but it's not. You can't understand why these people lose in court because you think you have the right to decide gay people or black people or whoever can't be served at your business.

And yet there's something called Public Accommodation laws.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm actually not convinced of that but hopefully the whole truth will come out. But if it turns out that Hunter was corrupt and trying to profit on his dad, I would not be at all surprised.


There are slander and libel laws that say I can't call you a pedophile without evidence.


Would that apply to Fox News, OANN, and Breitbart too?

Really? The laptop does exist. There is no question about this. The emails exist and have come out proving Joe Biden's involvement and is compromised with Russia, Ukraine and China. As far as you can't call someone a pedophile without evidence, how about Kavanaugh and calling him a rapist with no evidence? Or Trump's supposedly escapades in Russia that were false? Yes, there are slander laws that will be used if you are a Republican. But, not for Democrats.
No media should be silenced. They need to prove their reports and let the people decide. The marketplace has shown recently what happens when you spread lies and disinformation with CNN+ and pretty much most of what the mainstream Democrat media pushes.

 

[Cougarbear]

Do you know about public accommodation laws?

What you're saying is that racists should not have to serve black people, or Asians, or foreigners. That religious people shouldn't have to serve non-religious people or people of other religions.

What you're saying is that segregation should be brought back.

That racism should be allowed to flourish.

You have completely lost this debate. Why should racist have to serve anyone anymore than blacks should serve racists? That was pathetic. Why should the Baptist church have to serve the Jehovah Witnesses? You make absolutely no sense. Take a deep breath and try again.

 

[surada]

The same could be said about the boarder and illegal crossings. The liberal left Democrats keep saying the immigration laws are broken. No, they are not. What's broken are the people in government, mainly the current President and his administration and including the judges not following the laws already on the books. Another example would be the Democrats and their flipping on their own beliefs about free speech. Berkley was the founding movement in these latter days concerning free speech. Now, they want to silence free speech they don't agree with. Now, the Democrats want to establish a disinformation bureaucracy Czar to silence conservative republican speech. We have the 1st amendment but Democrats don't want to follow it.
The laws, administration of the laws are on the books for everyone to follow. But, not everyone wants to follow them either. What's the solution when it's people that are in charge of the laws and administration? The Media isn't helping as they should. They are enabling the problems.

You're a lawyer?

 

[surada]

Who is the decision maker of what is a lie or what is true? Nina Jankowicz? She said Hunter's laptop was fake and Russian disinformation and it turned out to be all true and not Russian disinformation. The 1st amendment protects the right of people to lie or tell the truth and not be limited by the Government. Also, The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Private companies can have rules against it. The question is if social media companies who sway government elections should also be required to allow all sides of issues to be heard or not.

Twitter doesn't owe anyone a platform.. they aren't the government. You all can start your own version of Twitter and say anything you like, slander to your hearts content and bury your social media in conspiracy theories.

 

[Cougarbear]

You're a lawyer?

Are you? If so, do something different. What the heck does being a lawyer have to do with voicing opinions? Typical leftist answer. By the way, Lawyers are mostly hypocrites. They have to be.

 

[Cougarbear]

Twitter doesn't owe anyone a platform.. they aren't the government. You all can start your own version of Twitter and say anything you like, slander to your hearts content and bury your social media in conspiracy theories.

No, we are taking Twitter away from the leftists. What's the matter? You aren't going to be able to spread disinformation. The key is that the Bill of Rights are to protect the people from the government. Not the other way around. When Twitter, Facebook...become information providers for political elections and laws, they now must also be under the Bill of Rights. If Facebook was guilty of discrimination against LGBTQ people, they would have to go to court over it. So, private companies are sometimes under the Bill of Rights too.

 

[surada]

No, we are taking Twitter away from the leftists. What's the matter? You aren't going to be able to spread disinformation. The key is that the Bill of Rights are to protect the people from the government. Not the other way around. When Twitter, Facebook...become information providers for political elections and laws, they now must also be under the Bill of Rights. If Facebook was guilty of discrimination against LGBTQ people, they would have to go to court over it. So, private companies are sometimes under the Bill of Rights too.

I don't use Twitter or Facebook. They are still private companies.