... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.
also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.
what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.
Here is a better revision. Now the post has a much deeper meaning:
Simon and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.
also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.
what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.
Wow.
Do you buy the “bad lighting” excuse people are saying about this?
Ha ha. There is bad lighting - the lights are on.
... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.
also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.
what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.
I fixed it!
SimonCoded Logic and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.
It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
What happens when some Westboro Baptist Church type group orders a "god hates gays" cake from a gay baker - can they refuse?
This was one of the sticking points that got the Colorado case overturned. There were three previous cases of a man asking bakers to create anti-gay cakes, with some scriptures on the top of the cake. The bakers refused because it upset their moral convictions. The Colorado Human Rights council upheld the baker’s right to do this... but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot......
This is also why I think the case could still go either way. The court didn’t even get to the point where they might debate the constitutionality of the case. Rather, the blatant inconsistency just made it clear they had to overturn the decision.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
@Diogenesister:
After the Civil War and during reconstruction, before the racists took control of the state governments again, there was a period of time when blacks and whites interacted without laws mandating segregation. There were blacks that held high offices in all levels of government (senators, governors, etc). There was a black Governor of Louisiana of all places (where “separate but equal originated later”). Here is a list:
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
I found the video below interesting. It’s an hour long, but Woods goes through all of the opinions on the case.
Near the end he takes a position closer to freedom of association instead of private property - although those two freedoms/rights are closely related.
He makes a good point: why can’t we just base our interactions on the simple principle that we don’t initiate violence if someone doesn’t want to interact? And why would you want to enter into a business relationship if the other party doesn’t want to? This is similar to the point I made earlier - if you force bakers to interact, they will make you a horrible cake.
There are some interesting points made about the 14th amendment near the beginning.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
To my point much earlier, look at Jim Crow laws, the GOVERNMENT enforced required segregation to hold back the market from NOT discriminating.
The usual narrative given to us is that society was permeated with racists, and the benevolent government stepped in and used the force of law for good, squashing all those segregationist dreams. In fact, it was the exact opposite.
Walter Williams used to make this point quite well. He would point out that you don’t need laws if society is segregating voluntarily. The Jim Crow laws came about from racist Democrats wanting to push back against the natural integration caused by free market voluntarism.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
But there should be no place for discrimination in public, no matter how “sincerely held” their homophobia.
So you are OK enslaving people?
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
@scotsman:
Again, I would love for those people to advertise their viewpoints so I know exactly which businesses to avoid.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Looks very like a short term win for the baker if you read the grounds for the decision: it wasn't about protecting Masterpiece's right to freedom of religious belief but about the fact that Colorado was hostile to their religious views, describing them "despicable". It was this that was impermissible. The ruling does not settle the wider issues referred to in this thread.
In this case, true. Not to worry, however. The activists went to florists too.
If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...
This could do whatever they want in this regard. They should not be forced to put any sign out. But if that floats their boat...
