Discussion:
Yes!
(too old to reply)
trotsky
2018-06-12 09:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
FPP
2018-06-12 09:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Rhino
2018-06-12 17:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.

If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
--
Rhino
m***@hotmail.com
2018-06-12 17:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
If that and higher-ups find that it defies logic yes, you're right?
anim8rfsk
2018-06-12 17:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
Grub Hub won't deliver food to Trump supporters, and since they just
swallowed up YelpEat24, I assume it now extends to them as well.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2018-06-12 17:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
Political affiliation and/or belief isn't a protected class under U.S. law.

Businesses are free to discriminate as much as they want against anyone
they want so long as their discrimination isn't on the basis of membership
in a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual
orientation, and national origin).
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
There's not really much point. The judge made the right decision under the
law. Until Congress changes the law to include political affiliation as a
protected class, appealing is a waste of time.

It is hypocritical, however, for the leading lights of sensitivity and
progressivism here-- FPP, Hutt, etc.-- to cheer discrimination based on
political ideology while they bemoan a guy who wouldn't bake a cake.
FPP
2018-06-12 22:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
Political affiliation and/or belief isn't a protected class under U.S. law.
Businesses are free to discriminate as much as they want against anyone
they want so long as their discrimination isn't on the basis of membership
in a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual
orientation, and national origin).
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
There's not really much point. The judge made the right decision under the
law. Until Congress changes the law to include political affiliation as a
protected class, appealing is a waste of time.
It is hypocritical, however, for the leading lights of sensitivity and
progressivism here-- FPP, Hutt, etc.-- to cheer discrimination based on
political ideology while they bemoan a guy who wouldn't bake a cake.
Where did I do that, fucknuts?
I just said that Trump supporters need alcohol more than most.

How else could you wash the lies down every day?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
IAM
2018-06-12 22:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
Political affiliation and/or belief isn't a protected class under U.S. law.

Businesses are free to discriminate as much as they want against anyone
they want so long as their discrimination isn't on the basis of membership in a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual , orientation, and national origin.

Which means about EVERYTHING! man You are dumb.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
There's not really much point. The judge made the right decision under the
law. Until Congress changes the law to include political affiliation as a
protected class, appealing is a waste of time.
It is hypocritical, however, for the leading lights of sensitivity and
progressivism here-- FPP, Hutt, etc.-- to cheer discrimination based on
political ideology while they bemoan a guy who wouldn't bake a cake.
IAM
2018-06-12 22:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fixed it for you:
Political affiliation and/or belief isn't a protected class under U.S. law.

Businesses are free to discriminate as much as they want against anyone they want so long as their discrimination isn't on the basis of membership in a protected class (dark skinned race, Sex Rape Majic, religion, child sacrifice, Pedophilia, rapists, foreign mercenary assassins networks, the establishment media, yellow to black ethnicity, alternative gender, age sex, sexual abuse of minors, cannibals, bankstres, Wall Street Traders, orientation to servitude , and national origin other than America. Which means about EVERYTHING!
trotsky
2018-06-13 09:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
Political affiliation and/or belief isn't a protected class under U.S. law.
Businesses are free to discriminate as much as they want against anyone
they want so long as their discrimination isn't on the basis of membership
in a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual
orientation, and national origin).
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
There's not really much point. The judge made the right decision under the
law. Until Congress changes the law to include political affiliation as a
protected class, appealing is a waste of time.
It is hypocritical, however, for the leading lights of sensitivity and
progressivism here-- FPP, Hutt, etc.-- to cheer discrimination based on
political ideology while they bemoan a guy who wouldn't bake a cake.
I'll explain this in detail for you. I suggest you take notes:

McConnell ratfucked the Constitution by changing the rules on how SCOTUS
judges can be confirmed, thus tipping the balance in favor of
"conservatives" that can't win by playing by the rules. This
conservative leaning SCOTUS just upheld that a baker can discriminate
against gays. This is not what America is about, but it is what right
wing assholes are about. Now they're stuck with what's good for the
goose is good for the gander. Of course the left, who is inclusive of
all people, isn't happy with the event leading up to this, but if you're
going to tell a group of people to fuck off I can't think of a better
one than Trump supporters. I know you don't have the balls to reply to
this so I won't eagerly await for one.
Your Name
2018-06-13 01:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs
That was over-ruled by a the Supreme Court, so he was legally allowed
not to bake a cake for them (he did apparently offer to sell them an
off-the-shelf cake, but not bake a custom one for them):

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make
same-sex wedding cake
<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html>
Post by Rhino
- and a photographer can't decline to film their ceremony - how on
earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters of a particular
partition? That defies all logic.
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
All this "Politically Correct" garbage *really* needs to be just thrown out.

A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.

As usual, there's also a double-standard here. Bars (as an example) are
legally obligated to refuse to serve under-age customers. Bars are also
supposed to refuse to serve (whether legally or just morally) someone
who is "too drunk' already or someone who is pregnant. Another example
is religious buildings - in some religions you have observe their
customs before being allowed to enter.
FPP
2018-06-13 01:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.

I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.

So, no... we're not going back to segregation. Not for water fountains,
not for schools, and not for cakes.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Your Name
2018-06-13 04:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation. Not for water
fountains, not for schools, and not for cakes.
Not quite the same thing. "Segregation" was basically enforced law
everywhere. I'm talking about personal preference at an individual
business.

If you come to my business wanting me to do work for you, and I don't
want to work for you, then I won't. Plain and simple. The reason is
irrelevant.

It's no different if you decide you don't want to work for your
employer - you simply quit. You aren't forced to stay there, so I'm not
forced to work for you either.

You often see signs in some hospitality businesses which say that they
reserve the right not to serve you.
David Johnston
2018-06-13 16:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation. Not for water
fountains, not for schools, and not for cakes.
Not quite the same thing. "Segregation" was basically enforced law
everywhere.
No, it wasn't. Segregation existed both as actual state and federal laws and as informal customary practice.
Your Name
2018-06-13 22:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Your Name
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation. Not for water
fountains, not for schools, and not for cakes.
Not quite the same thing. "Segregation" was basically enforced law
everywhere.
No, it wasn't. Segregation existed both as actual state and federal
laws and as informal customary practice.
"informal customary practice" is personal preference (although there
would also be pressure and intimidation from others to "conform").
David Johnston
2018-06-14 14:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by David Johnston
Post by Your Name
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation. Not for water
fountains, not for schools, and not for cakes.
Not quite the same thing. "Segregation" was basically enforced law
everywhere.
No, it wasn't. Segregation existed both as actual state and federal
laws and as informal customary practice.
"informal customary practice" is personal preference (although there
would also be pressure and intimidation from others to "conform").
When enough people "personally prefer" that black people stay the hell out of their area and are willing to act on that preference the result is still segregation.
FPP
2018-06-13 05:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they
don't want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If
you're the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already.  Look it up... it was called "segregation".
The same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also
stop the same baker from serving Jews.  Or Blacks.  Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.  Not for water
fountains, not for schools, and not for cakes.
Not quite the same thing. "Segregation" was basically enforced law
everywhere. I'm talking about personal preference at an individual
business.
If you come to my business wanting me to do work for you, and I don't
want to work for you, then I won't. Plain and simple. The reason is
irrelevant.
It's no different if you decide you don't want to work for your employer
- you simply quit. You aren't forced to stay there, so I'm not forced to
work for you either.
You often see signs in some hospitality businesses which say that they
reserve the right not to serve you.
Then why didn't the baker just SAY that. I guess because he WANTED to
make it an issue... which is exactly what he did when he cited the
couple's sexual orientation.

And just what the fuck does a baker have to do with the wedding anyway?
He's not a part of it, except to make the food. It's not like he has to
get in there and join in a homosexual orgy or anything...
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-13 15:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?


Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917


Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party

https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/


'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 21:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
You missed the code phrase "identify as"! It doesn't discriminate.
Attendees just have to "identify as" persons of color.
Post by BTR1701
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
BTR1701
2018-06-14 02:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
You missed the code phrase "identify as"! It doesn't discriminate.
Attendees just have to "identify as" persons of color.
Heh. Well, that's still segregation because it still segregates and
discriminates against anyone who doesn't identify as POC.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
trotsky
2018-06-13 23:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Right. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, thus causing your
Libertarian panties to go all in a bunch?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
FPP
2018-06-14 02:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 02:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.

So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?

And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
FPP
2018-06-14 03:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before. Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on
which way the wind blows.

BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again?
I can't seem to find that one.

And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about? Cross burning?
Last I checked that's not on any religion's list.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 04:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?

And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
FPP
2018-06-14 05:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it. The KKK isn't a
religion... it's a splinter group that uses the word "Christian".

If you want a Christian cake, fine. If you want swastikas, then no.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Your Name
2018-06-14 06:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it. The KKK isn't a
religion... it's a splinter group that uses the word "Christian".
If you want a Christian cake, fine. If you want swastikas, then no.
That's where things can get complicated. The swastika symbol was
originally an Indian religious symbol, but it was hijacked by the Nazis:

The swastika is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon
used commonly in the Indian subcontinent, ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika>
BTR1701
2018-06-14 07:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court. But they're not 'just
claiming it'. They've been practicing Christian Identity for the better
part of a century and it's recognized as a legitimate (albeit repugnant)
religious doctrine by the government.

So I'll ask again: Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a
KKK ritual?
FPP
2018-06-14 08:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court. But they're not 'just
claiming it'. They've been practicing Christian Identity for the better
part of a century and it's recognized as a legitimate (albeit repugnant)
religious doctrine by the government.
So I'll ask again: Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a
KKK ritual?
How many fucking times do you want me to answer? Until you get the one
you like?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 09:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court. But they're not 'just
claiming it'. They've been practicing Christian Identity for the better
part of a century and it's recognized as a legitimate (albeit repugnant)
religious doctrine by the government.
So I'll ask again: Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a
KKK ritual?
How many fucking times do you want me to answer? Until you get the one
you like?
No, until you actually answer the question. A simple declarative yes or
no will do. That'll give us a clear reading on the hypocrisy meter for
you.

And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
FPP
2018-06-14 12:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court. But they're not 'just
claiming it'. They've been practicing Christian Identity for the better
part of a century and it's recognized as a legitimate (albeit repugnant)
religious doctrine by the government.
So I'll ask again: Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a
KKK ritual?
How many fucking times do you want me to answer? Until you get the one
you like?
No, until you actually answer the question. A simple declarative yes or
no will do. That'll give us a clear reading on the hypocrisy meter for
you.
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
No, it won't. Because the answer isn't simple.
The answer, like most things in life, is "it depends".
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already.  Look it up... it was called
"segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court. But they're not 'just
claiming it'. They've been practicing Christian Identity for the better
part of a century and it's recognized as a legitimate (albeit repugnant)
religious doctrine by the government.
So I'll ask again: Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a
KKK ritual?
How many fucking times do you want me to answer?  Until you get the one
you like?
I would like to see an answer, because I'm really interested in hearing
where these cake serving KKK rituals are. "And now, before the
lynchings and cross burnings, we will have the ritual cake, prepared by
a black baker we're about to kill." Thanny's stupidity can be quite
funny at times.
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
But it doesn't matter what it's called. It's still protected under the
1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
And just what KKK religious ritual are we talking about?
You have to ask them what they're names for the ceremonies are-- I have
no idea-- but the names for the rituals are irrelevant to the question
at hand, which you *still* haven't answered: Should a black baker be
forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring (again) how we definitely are
'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. Just claiming to be a religion doesn't cut it.
Yeah, it actually does, per the Supreme Court.
Cite, liar?
FPP
2018-06-14 05:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.

In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.

I'll wait.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 07:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

So I'll ask the question again that you *still* have failed to answer:
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?

Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
FPP
2018-06-14 08:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.

Not irrelevant. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ.
So show me where Christ said anything near what the KKK believes in.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 09:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.
One doesn't have to be Christian for one's right to worship to be
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Not irrelevant. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ.
One doesn't have to believe in the teachings of Christ in order for
one's right to worship to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
So show me where Christ said anything near what the KKK believes in.
Show me where the 1st Amendment requires one to show that their doctrine
is endorsed by other Christians before legal protection applies.

Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
FPP
2018-06-14 09:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.
One doesn't have to be Christian for one's right to worship to be
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Not irrelevant. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ.
One doesn't have to believe in the teachings of Christ in order for
one's right to worship to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
So show me where Christ said anything near what the KKK believes in.
Show me where the 1st Amendment requires one to show that their doctrine
is endorsed by other Christians before legal protection applies.
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Where have I said anything about what constitutes the limits of the 1st
Amendment here?
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.

Frauds like CI don't count.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 14:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they
don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If
you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation".
The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party
/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.
One doesn't have to be Christian for one's right to worship to be
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Not irrelevant. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ.
One doesn't have to believe in the teachings of Christ in order for
one's right to worship to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
So show me where Christ said anything near what the KKK believes in.
Show me where the 1st Amendment requires one to show that their doctrine
is endorsed by other Christians before legal protection applies.
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Where have I said anything about what constitutes the limits of the 1st
Amendment here?
Bringing up what Christ does and does not say is irrelevant otherwise.
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
FPP
2018-06-14 23:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they
don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If
you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation".
The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party
/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.
One doesn't have to be Christian for one's right to worship to be
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Not irrelevant. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ.
One doesn't have to believe in the teachings of Christ in order for
one's right to worship to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
So show me where Christ said anything near what the KKK believes in.
Show me where the 1st Amendment requires one to show that their doctrine
is endorsed by other Christians before legal protection applies.
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Where have I said anything about what constitutes the limits of the 1st
Amendment here?
Bringing up what Christ does and does not say is irrelevant otherwise.
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-15 02:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 02:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Not before the human rights tribunal of the state of Colorado prior to
Kennedy's decision, it wasn't. I think somebody had spilled coffee on the
tribunal's copy of the Constitution and that clause had become
unreadable.

It was an honest mistake, I'm sure.
BTR1701
2018-06-15 03:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Not before the human rights tribunal of the state of Colorado prior to
Kennedy's decision, it wasn't. I think somebody had spilled coffee on the
tribunal's copy of the Constitution and that clause had become
unreadable.
It was an honest mistake, I'm sure.
Yeah, you'd think if they were going to prioritize one right over the
other, they'd pick the one that's actually explicitly *in* the
Constitution.
FPP
2018-06-15 03:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.

Now, if you're going to bake a cake with swastikas on them for a hetero
couple, then you can't refuse to make the same cake for a gay couple.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-15 03:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?

(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 03:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!

FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
BTR1701
2018-06-15 04:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
FPP
2018-06-15 09:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
Oh, the King of Bullshit is weighing in on me again? And here I was
thinking he'd gotten over that ass waxing I gave him a couple of years
ago...

Sad when people just can't let it go...
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
trotsky
2018-06-15 10:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what
protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a
"constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
Oh, the King of Bullshit is weighing in on me again?  And here I was
thinking he'd gotten over that ass waxing I gave him a couple of years
ago...
Sad when people just can't let it go...
I agree. Thanny should let it go and leave the group permanently.
m***@hotmail.com
2018-06-15 21:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
Oh, the King of Bullshit is weighing in on me again?  And here I was
thinking he'd gotten over that ass waxing I gave him a couple of years
ago...
Sad when people just can't let it go...
I agree. Thanny should let it go and leave the group permanently.
No way, because whenever you try to exclude something, it appears in spades just to spite.
BTR1701
2018-06-15 14:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
Oh, the King of Bullshit is weighing in on me again? And here I was
thinking he'd gotten over that ass waxing I gave him a couple of years
ago...
Well, if that isn't the creepiest thing I've read on Usenet in a long
while. Here you've got me feeling sorry for Kerman, with you fantasizing
about waxing his ass. <shudder>
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 16:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion, that
cake decorating can be symbolic speech under certain circumstances!
FPP is the most amazing contortionist I've ever seen.
hee hee
Oh, the King of Bullshit is weighing in on me again? And here I was
thinking he'd gotten over that ass waxing I gave him a couple of years
ago...
Well, if that isn't the creepiest thing I've read on Usenet in a long
while. Here you've got me feeling sorry for Kerman, with you fantasizing
about waxing his ass. <shudder>
I didn't need to know this.
b***@gmail.com
2018-06-15 08:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion
Even so, just one instance? You're kidding. Just one instance? Just one instance is a surprise?
FPP
2018-06-15 09:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
You missed it: FPP just concurred with Justice Thomas's opinion
Even so, just one instance? You're kidding. Just one instance? Just one instance is a surprise?
Wow! Isn't that amazing? Two different people agreeing on something!
Has this ever happened before? Or am I the first?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
FPP
2018-06-15 09:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
Says the Constitution. Free exercise, dummy. Free exercise doesn't
require you to bake a cake with swastikas on it.

The case of the bakery isn't about free exercise of speech, it's about
fucking discriminating while hiding behind the freedoms we are granted
in the Constitution..
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-15 14:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
Says the Constitution. Free exercise, dummy.
Which says nothing about being free from 'hate symbols'.
FPP
2018-06-15 20:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
Says the Constitution. Free exercise, dummy.
Which says nothing about being free from 'hate symbols'.
It doesn't say a lot of things, but they exist nonetheless. See, the
founders thought people were smart enough to interpret what they meant
into the future.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-15 22:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Neither of which require you to bake a cake with hate symbols on them.
Says who?
(Or is this another one of those deals where you just say it's true and
then say "Constitution" over and over again with nothing else to back it
up?)
Says the Constitution. Free exercise, dummy.
Which says nothing about being free from 'hate symbols'.
It doesn't say a lot of things, but they exist nonetheless.
Only if a court has said so. Put the citation to that case here-->
trotsky
2018-06-15 10:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
We're discussing what constitutes a religion and what protections it
affords.
The 1st Amendment doesn't require a belief be part of a "constituted
religion". It can be ones personal spiritual beliefs shared by no one
else and free exercise of those beliefs is still protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Post by FPP
Frauds like CI don't count.
Yeah, they do, for purposes of 1st Amendment free exercise protection.
Free Speech doesn't require you to bake a cake with symbols of hate on it.
Free exercise is as much a protected right as being gay is.
Being gay is a "right"? If it's something you're born with is being
black also a "right" then? You are exceptionally stupid, dude.
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Nope. You can claim anything you want... but you can also challenge
anything you want too. The KKK isn't a religious group. Period.
Burning a cross doesn't make you Christian no matter how many times it
comes out of your pie-hole.
One doesn't have to be Christian for one's right to worship to be
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Agreed. I assume this is you admitting you were fucked in the head to
call them Christian in the first place.
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Putting immigrants in internment camps is segregation you fucking idiot.
And you that's only the tip of the iceberg. Any other questions
before you leave the group permanently?
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 16:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone
they don't want to serve - that's *their* right as the business
owner. If you're the one being refused service, simply go
somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
And while you're at it, try not ignoring how we definitely are 'going
back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
Same answer as before.
Your "answer as before" wasn't an answer; it was a question, which I
answered. You still haven't answered *my* question: Should a black baker
be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Post by FPP
Unlike you, my answer doesn't change based on which way the wind blows.
No, you just keep avoiding answering at all.
Post by FPP
BTW... what religion is "Christian"? Catholic? Protestant? Lutheran?
Which religion is it that hates blacks and Jews again? I can't seem to
find that one.
It's called Christian Identity.
Find me a Christian sect that thinks the teachings of Christ include
hatred and murder of blacks and Jews, and then we'll talk.
I already have found one for you. The sect is called Christian Identity.
Post by FPP
In fact, show me a single gospel by Jesus that tells his followers to
hate any other religions and races or colors.
Irrelevant. It's their religion and they don't need to have it vetted by
other Christians or the government (or even FPP) in order for their
practice of it to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Jesus. (sorry)

FPP is making a "true religion" argument. Humanity's deadliest wars
were fought over that doctrine. Some people who believe in that doctrine
can indeed believe that people who worship in another manner should be
killed. Most of today's terrorism and entire movements like the Taliban,
ISIS, Boko Harem, and Al Qaeda, are still slaughtering people to enforce
that doctrine.

Even if KKK is grouped with these deadly movements and brushed off
as different, it was mainstream religion trying to establish itself that
led to all those wars.
Post by BTR1701
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Oh, and it looks like you forgot (again) to address how we definitely
are 'going back to segregation', but it's seems to be 'different' when
'progressives' do it.
shawn
2018-06-14 04:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself. Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group
watchdog Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the KKK no longer exists
as a national organization. So it would have to be a local group
claiming such protection. Since none have even tried to claim tax
exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them claiming
to fit in as a protected class.
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
No, but then I don't think anyone should be forced to make a cake if
they don't want even if they are in a protected class. That's
different from refusing to serve them as the bakery in question was
perfectly willing to sell the gay couple a cake. They just weren't
willing to make the cake that the couple wanted.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 07:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by shawn
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself. Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group
watchdog Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the KKK no longer exists
as a national organization. So it would have to be a local group
claiming such protection. Since none have even tried to claim tax
exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them claiming
to fit in as a protected class.
Tax law lecture:

Because of the Free Exercise clause, a church is self declared and is
not described in tax law as other 501(c)(3) organizations are. IRS has a
procedure for challenging this declaration, either an inquiry or
examination, but it requires sign off from higher-ranking bureaucrats in
the Treasury department.

If a non-religious organization claims to be described in 501(c)(3), then it
usually has to file an application for recognition.
BTR1701
2018-06-14 08:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself.
No, but they have distinct religious beliefs and the practice of those
beliefs is protected by the 1st Amendment. So long as they don't
actually attack or infringe on anyone else's rights, they have as much
right to hold ceremonies and rituals pursuant to their religious beliefs
as do Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And since it's a constitutionally
protected right, imposing a duty on a Christian baker to bake a cake for
gays even if it offends him and runs contrary to his beliefs will also
impose a duty on a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK ritual.

Can't have it both ways.

And let's face it, the same people who are vehemently insisting that a
Christian baker can't deny gays, and the same government officials who
were Johnny-on-the-spot with enforcement against the Christian baker who
did so, would be mysteriously missing in action if the baker was Muslim
and refused to bake a cake for a Jewish bar mitzvah.
Post by shawn
Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group watchdog Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC),
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/jeryl-bier/the-splc-lacks-rigor-in-its-pol
icing-of-hate-crimes

At this point anyone who cites them as some kind of objective authority
undermines their own credibility.
Post by shawn
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.

There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
FPP
2018-06-14 08:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.
They're still way ahead of you in the credibility department.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.
They're still way ahead of you in the credibility department.
Just about everyone is. He's probably tied with Trump.
FPP
2018-06-14 08:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself.
No, but they have distinct religious beliefs and the practice of those
beliefs is protected by the 1st Amendment. So long as they don't
actually attack or infringe on anyone else's rights, they have as much
right to hold ceremonies and rituals pursuant to their religious beliefs
as do Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And since it's a constitutionally
protected right, imposing a duty on a Christian baker to bake a cake for
gays even if it offends him and runs contrary to his beliefs will also
impose a duty on a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK ritual.
Can't have it both ways.
And let's face it, the same people who are vehemently insisting that a
Christian baker can't deny gays, and the same government officials who
were Johnny-on-the-spot with enforcement against the Christian baker who
did so, would be mysteriously missing in action if the baker was Muslim
and refused to bake a cake for a Jewish bar mitzvah.
Post by shawn
Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group watchdog Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC),
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jeryl-bier/the-splc-lacks-rigor-in-its-pol
icing-of-hate-crimes
At this point anyone who cites them as some kind of objective authority
undermines their own credibility.
Post by shawn
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
From your own citation:

"Christian Identity is not an organized religion, and is not connected
with specific Christian denominations..."

Thanks for making my point. Great example!

"No single document expresses the Christian Identity belief system;
there is much disagreement over the doctrines being taught by those
ascribing to CI beliefs, since there is no central organization or
headquarters for the CI sect."

So, no, they're not a religion, and I'd love to see them taken to court
in a discrimination case.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 08:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself.
No, but they have distinct religious beliefs and the practice of those
beliefs is protected by the 1st Amendment. So long as they don't
actually attack or infringe on anyone else's rights, they have as much
right to hold ceremonies and rituals pursuant to their religious beliefs
as do Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And since it's a constitutionally
protected right, imposing a duty on a Christian baker to bake a cake for
gays even if it offends him and runs contrary to his beliefs will also
impose a duty on a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK ritual.
Can't have it both ways.
And let's face it, the same people who are vehemently insisting that a
Christian baker can't deny gays, and the same government officials who
were Johnny-on-the-spot with enforcement against the Christian baker who
did so, would be mysteriously missing in action if the baker was Muslim
and refused to bake a cake for a Jewish bar mitzvah.
Post by shawn
Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group watchdog Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC),
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jeryl-bier/the-splc-lacks-rigor-in-its-pol
icing-of-hate-crimes
At this point anyone who cites them as some kind of objective authority
undermines their own credibility.
Post by shawn
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
"Christian Identity is not an organized religion, and is not connected
with specific Christian denominations..."
A religion is neither required to be organized nor be connected to other
Christians in order to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Thanks for making my point.
You apparently don't know what your point is.
FPP
2018-06-14 09:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself.
No, but they have distinct religious beliefs and the practice of those
beliefs is protected by the 1st Amendment. So long as they don't
actually attack or infringe on anyone else's rights, they have as much
right to hold ceremonies and rituals pursuant to their religious beliefs
as do Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And since it's a constitutionally
protected right, imposing a duty on a Christian baker to bake a cake for
gays even if it offends him and runs contrary to his beliefs will also
impose a duty on a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK ritual.
Can't have it both ways.
And let's face it, the same people who are vehemently insisting that a
Christian baker can't deny gays, and the same government officials who
were Johnny-on-the-spot with enforcement against the Christian baker who
did so, would be mysteriously missing in action if the baker was Muslim
and refused to bake a cake for a Jewish bar mitzvah.
Post by shawn
Futhermore according to Heidi Beirich of the hate group watchdog Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC),
Yeah, the SPLC has lost whatever credibility it once had. It's no longer
a reliable source for anything. It routinely reports hoaxes as 'hate
crimes', and even after the hoaxes have been exposed, continues to count
them, and it lists groups as 'hate groups' merely for being conservative.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jeryl-bier/the-splc-lacks-rigor-in-its-pol
icing-of-hate-crimes
At this point anyone who cites them as some kind of objective authority
undermines their own credibility.
Post by shawn
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
"Christian Identity is not an organized religion, and is not connected
with specific Christian denominations..."
A religion is neither required to be organized nor be connected to other
Christians in order to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Post by FPP
Thanks for making my point.
You apparently don't know what your point is.
And listening to your drivel won't improve that.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.
Well, we are. But it's okay when 'progressives' do it, right?
Student Group Bars White 'Allies' from Forum
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10917
Scripps College Hosts Segregated Pool Party
https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
'Progressive' Students Demand 'POC-Only Space' at NYC University
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729
What protected class is the KKK in, counselor?
Religion. Their rituals are heavily steeped in their religious beliefs.
I get that you are just playing alongm but the KKK isn't a relgion in
and of itself.
No, but they have distinct religious beliefs and the practice of those
beliefs is protected by the 1st Amendment. So long as they don't
actually attack or infringe on anyone else's rights, they have as much
right to hold ceremonies and rituals pursuant to their religious beliefs
as do Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And since it's a constitutionally
protected right, imposing a duty on a Christian baker to bake a cake for
gays even if it offends him and runs contrary to his beliefs will also
impose a duty on a black baker to bake a cake for a KKK ritual.
Can't have it both ways.
Actually, you can. Once a group is deemed "terrorists" then their
rights go out the window and stuff like the First Amendment and due
process go out the window. In the case of Gitmo, "terrorists" isn't
even used, just "enemy combatants". You and your ilk have been taking a
shit on the Constitution for years now and for you to try and make
"Constitutional" arguments is beyond hypocritical. You should just leave.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 17:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
. . .
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
I disagree with you here. Tax law does not define what a church is, for
that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, nor does it
define worship, which would be an unconstitutional prohibition on free
exercise of religion. That an organization is a church is self declared.
The tax code and civil rights under the constitution are not very
different, not at all.

The controlling Supreme Court opinion is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in which
late 1960s laws in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania subsidizing nonpublic
schools were found to be unconstitutional. The states were supplementing
teachers' salaries and other operating costs. Rhode Island's law was
an Establishment Clause violation as the record showed that 95% of the
monies went to Catholic schools. Pennsylvania's was a Free Exercise
violation because grant compliance was for the secular aspects of
education at a religious school, which meant that the state had to
determine when religion was being exercised during audits.

It's a Berger opinion in which there is a three-part "Lemon Test" to
determine what a church is. If the government wishes to object to a
self declaration that an organization is a church, IRS itself cannot
initiate the challenge. An inquiry or examination (depending on how
significant the challenge is) must be approved by a higher level Treasury
bureaucrat. Treasury procedures are in accord with the Lemon Test.

For the purpose of tax law, all congregations are "churches" regardless
of the correct religious term.

An organization that isn't religious that's qualified to receive
charitable contributions that are deductible under Section 170(c) must
be determined by IRS that it is described in 501(c)(3). An application
is required (with a hefty fee) if over a certain threshold to receive
the determination letter.

A church is listed in 170(c) and 501(c)(3) but it is not described.
There is no required application, although some churches apply for
recognition voluntarily. Furthermore, a church isn't subject to filing a
tax return annually, although some do so voluntarily.

Churches are subject to the same restrictions as other organizations
that are "organized and operated as" described in 501(c)(3), including
prohibitions on support or opposition to political candidates, and
severe limitations on lobbying.

To the extent that a KKK organization incorporates worship, there is no
reason why a contribution wouldn't be deductible under 170(c) and the
church wouldn't be subject to 501(c)(3). Over the years, KKK organizations
were sued for torts and indicted for criminal activities. What was the
federal case you were thinking of that recognized its free exercise
of religion?
BTR1701
2018-06-14 18:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
. . .
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
I disagree with you here. Tax law does not define what a church is, for
that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, nor does it
define worship, which would be an unconstitutional prohibition on free
exercise of religion. That an organization is a church is self declared.
The tax code and civil rights under the constitution are not very
different, not at all.
The controlling Supreme Court opinion is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in which
late 1960s laws in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania subsidizing nonpublic
schools were found to be unconstitutional. The states were supplementing
teachers' salaries and other operating costs. Rhode Island's law was
an Establishment Clause violation as the record showed that 95% of the
monies went to Catholic schools. Pennsylvania's was a Free Exercise
violation because grant compliance was for the secular aspects of
education at a religious school, which meant that the state had to
determine when religion was being exercised during audits.
It's a Berger opinion in which there is a three-part "Lemon Test" to
determine what a church is. If the government wishes to object to a
self declaration that an organization is a church, IRS itself cannot
initiate the challenge. An inquiry or examination (depending on how
significant the challenge is) must be approved by a higher level Treasury
bureaucrat. Treasury procedures are in accord with the Lemon Test.
For the purpose of tax law, all congregations are "churches" regardless
of the correct religious term.
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.

The fact that you may have to pay property tax on your worship hall doesn't
mean the government can outlaw your religion altogether.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 20:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
. . .
the KKK no longer exists as a national organization. So it would have to
be a local group claiming such protection. Since none have even tried
to claim tax exempt status due to their being a religion I don't see them
claiming to fit in as a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Tax exempt status and the freedom to worship are two very different
things. One is protected by the 1st Amendment, the other is statutory in
nature.
There are plenty of splinter sects and minor religions that would not
qualify for tax exempt status, but whose members still enjoy the
constitutional freedom to worship as they please and whose right to do
so cannot be infringed.
I disagree with you here. Tax law does not define what a church is, for
that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, nor does it
define worship, which would be an unconstitutional prohibition on free
exercise of religion. That an organization is a church is self declared.
The tax code and civil rights under the constitution are not very
different, not at all.
The controlling Supreme Court opinion is Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in which
late 1960s laws in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania subsidizing nonpublic
schools were found to be unconstitutional. The states were supplementing
teachers' salaries and other operating costs. Rhode Island's law was
an Establishment Clause violation as the record showed that 95% of the
monies went to Catholic schools. Pennsylvania's was a Free Exercise
violation because grant compliance was for the secular aspects of
education at a religious school, which meant that the state had to
determine when religion was being exercised during audits.
Oops.

The Rhode Island statute wasn't an Establishment but a prohibition on
free exercise of religion because the state would have to determine that
secular education really was taking place when secular subjects were
being taught, and there's no way to avoid excessive state oversight.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's a Berger opinion in which there is a three-part "Lemon Test" to
determine what a church is. If the government wishes to object to a
self declaration that an organization is a church, IRS itself cannot
initiate the challenge. An inquiry or examination (depending on how
significant the challenge is) must be approved by a higher level Treasury
bureaucrat. Treasury procedures are in accord with the Lemon Test.
For the purpose of tax law, all congregations are "churches" regardless
of the correct religious term.
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.

Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.

I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.

Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!

G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.

Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Post by BTR1701
The fact that you may have to pay property tax on your worship hall doesn't
mean the government can outlaw your religion altogether.
That's state tax law, and quite frankly, how the hell is the property
tax exemption a "secular legislative purpose" and the primary effect not
promoting religion and therefore not unconstitutional under Lemon?
BTR1701
2018-06-15 08:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
FPP
2018-06-15 09:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
Sure. The Constitution doesn't forbid being delusional, and I never
thought it did.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
trotsky
2018-06-15 10:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
    Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
Sure.  The Constitution doesn't forbid being delusional, and I never
thought it did.
Thanny would be in deep shit if it did though.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
Again: The church's application for tax exemption is voluntary (and the
church isn't subject to filing annual tax returns). It's a church, not
under statute, but because a group of people have formed a congregation to
worship as a church. The burden of proof that it's not a church is on
the government.

Because it's a church, it's a qualified organization to receive deductible
charitable contributions under IRC 170(c). It is true that no individual
is required to take a deduction under 170(c) for his contribution. Despite
the free exercise clause, IRC 501(c)(3) is applicable despite that the
church hasn't voluntarily sought recognition. 501(c)(3) isn't voluntary for
churches and does burden speech/publishing due to prohibitions on support
or opposition to a candidate for election to public office (or a nominee
to a federal appointment to public office) and severe restrictions on
lobbying. The lobbying restriction is both a burden on speech/publishing
and the right to petition.

Your opinion, that someone isn't required to worship as part of a church
to enjoy free exercise of religion, while correct, is irrelevant. In the
hypothetical, people freely exercising their religion chose to organize
a church in which to congregate and worship.

In the hypothetical, the government met its burden (under the Lemon test)
that it wasn't a church because it was committing felonies or otherwise
not complying with IRC 501(c)(3), in addition to whatever religious
worship was taking place.

So, yeah, that is a burden on free exercise. You, personally, don't
believe in church, but they did!

Generally, our Founding Fathers didn't protect the rights of
organizations. That organizations have certain civil rights as juridical
persons has been an expansion of rights little by little over the
centuries, ultimately culminating in a corporation's right of free
exercise in the decision I'll never stop making fun of, Hobby Lobby.

The First Amendment was a rare exception. Several clauses offer some
protection to organizations: To a church (not just individuals) in the
free exercise clause, freedom of the press (again, not limited to an
individual who performs all duties leading to publication), and
peaceable assembly (which isn't an individual right at all).
BTR1701
2018-06-15 18:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
Again: The church's application for tax exemption is voluntary (and the
church isn't subject to filing annual tax returns).
I'm not sure what church we're talking about here. Christian Identity is a
racist religious religious ideology, but I don't believe they're claiming
to be a church with congregants where everyone goes to worship Bigot Jesus.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 19:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
My point was that even if a church is ultimately denied tax exempt status,
their right to worship as they please still can't be infringed by the
government.
I still disagree. Treasury, applying the Lemon test, has made a finding
that the organization was not a church and had not been freely exercising
religion. There is no other test under federal law, nor is the Lemon test
limited to tax law. Lemon v. Kurtzman wasn't a tax law case anyway.
Individuals retain their civil rights to organize a new church or to
freely exercise religion by themselves, alone. Treasury, while it can
take away the church, cannot take that liberty away.
I realize what I'm disagreeing about is nuance.
Individual: I wish to freely exercise my religion with that church!
G-man: Treasury has found it's not a church, forcing its dissolution.
Individual: I'll organize the former congregants into a new church;
Treasury cannot prevent me from doing that."
Yes, but the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause doesn't even require
you to *have* a church or worship with anyone else or even apply for tax
exempt status. Your religion can be your own, specific just to you, and
it's still protected.
Again: The church's application for tax exemption is voluntary (and the
church isn't subject to filing annual tax returns).
I'm not sure what church we're talking about here. Christian Identity is a
racist religious religious ideology, but I don't believe they're claiming
to be a church with congregants where everyone goes to worship Bigot Jesus.
Is there a federal court case that said a KKK group was a church that was
limited to free exercise of religion and therefore couldn't be dissolved
as the government attempted?

If that's not the case, was the federal court case an individual
conducting a solo religious ceremony, or was it a group conducting a
religious ceremony? If that latter, that makes it church.

If you think about it, from the perspective of federal law, "church" is
nothing more than people who have voluntarily associated to freely
exercise religion. It's not about whether they're operating a more
formalized organization following business procedures and spending
monies they've raised for the purpose of advancing their religion. It's
just the free association of people who worship together.

If you're not talking about a situation in which the government
succeeded in dissolving them, or attempted to dissolve them but was
thwarted by a federal court, then I'm utterly lost. You're going to have
to tell me what case you're referring to.
A Friend
2018-06-14 11:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
FPP
2018-06-14 12:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
See, he doesn't want to get into specifics. Because if he did, I could
answer, and that isn't his goal.

How do I answer a question so broad without knowing what the specifics are.
Like I said, the answer is "it depends".

Is the ritual a cross burning? Is the cake to be adorned with burning
crosses and little swastikas?

And what does the KKK have to do with religion? Because some of them are
practicing Christians? What kind of Christian hates people for their
skin color?

What makes the KKK objectionable isn't their God. It's their hate.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 14:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
See, he doesn't want to get into specifics.
Maybe they just want to create a test case, just like the gay couple did
with this specific baker. They went to the cake maker specifically
because they expected to be refused and discriminated against and wanted
to make a point. A Klan guy could do the same thing and it would be just
as legitimate.
Post by FPP
Like I said, the answer is "it depends".
Yep, you've made it clear that the answer is that constitutional
protection depends on whether it fits with the Agenda or not.
FPP
2018-06-14 23:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
See, he doesn't want to get into specifics.
Maybe they just want to create a test case, just like the gay couple did
with this specific baker. They went to the cake maker specifically
because they expected to be refused and discriminated against and wanted
to make a point. A Klan guy could do the same thing and it would be just
as legitimate.
Post by FPP
Like I said, the answer is "it depends".
Yep, you've made it clear that the answer is that constitutional
protection depends on whether it fits with the Agenda or not.
Sorry... but almost every legal case depends on the circumstances. Lore
Skool 101, counselor.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 14:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
Maybe they're peckish.
FPP
2018-06-14 23:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
So want to try again? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for
a KKK ritual?
Why do you keep asking this? What Klan ritual is it that requires a
cake?
Maybe they're peckish.
And I'm sure they hate anybody else that's not peckish.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
FPP
2018-06-14 02:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's*their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Why? Have you had trouble getting them to make you one in the past?
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
A Friend
2018-06-14 02:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's*their* right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already. Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Why? Have you had trouble getting them to make you one in the past?
So those weren't burning crosses? They were candles?
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they don't
want to serve - that's*their*  right as the business owner. If you're
the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already.  Look it up... it was called "segregation". The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews. Or Blacks. Or Asians.
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for a KKK ritual?
Why?  Have you had trouble getting them to make you one in the past?
I tried googling "the black baker" and the closest I got was:

https://www.blackwalnutbakery.com/bakeryinmotion/

They show a white woman in the picture on the site that might not work.
trotsky
2018-06-13 23:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
A business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone they
don't want to serve - that's *their* right as the business owner. If
you're the one being refused service, simply go somewhere else.
We tried that already.  Look it up... it was called "segregation".  The
same law that allows a baker not to serve gay customers can also stop
the same baker from serving Jews.  Or Blacks.  Or Asians.
I remember traveling through the deep South as a kid and seeing signs
that said "Colored" over some water fountains, so it's not even that
long ago.
So, no... we're not going back to segregation.  Not for water fountains,
not for schools, and not for cakes.
If we do it for urinal cakes we can kill two birds with one stone.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 02:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.

At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.

The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.

Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.

It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-13 02:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery. We have no religious rights
to fall back on. Do we have to make any cake anybody wants us to?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 04:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery. We have no religious rights
to fall back on. Do we have to make any cake anybody wants us to?
Either you believe in marriage, or you don't. If you don't believe in
marriage, then there's an untapped market for cakes for divorced people.
Your Name
2018-06-13 04:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery. We have no religious rights
to fall back on. Do we have to make any cake anybody wants us to?
Nope. A transaction is a business agreement. You have every right to
decline such an agreement on any grounds you want to. It happens every
day in all sorts of businesses. For example, a taxi driver might refuse
to let you inot the taxi because you fell over in a cow field and are
covered in cow poo.
TeeJay1952
2018-06-13 12:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery.  We have no religious rights
to fall back on.  Do we have to make any cake anybody wants us to?
Nope. A transaction is a business agreement. You have every right to
decline such an agreement on any grounds you want to. It happens every
day in all sorts of businesses. For example, a taxi driver might refuse
to let you inot the taxi because you fell over in a cow field and are
covered in cow poo.
That is bullshit!
Tee (I know bullshit when I see it) Jay
Your Name
2018-06-13 22:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TeeJay1952
Post by Your Name
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery.  We have no religious rights
to fall back on.  Do we have to make any cake anybody wants us to?
Nope. A transaction is a business agreement. You have every right to
decline such an agreement on any grounds you want to. It happens every
day in all sorts of businesses. For example, a taxi driver might refuse
to let you inot the taxi because you fell over in a cow field and are
covered in cow poo.
That is bullshit!
Tee (I know bullshit when I see it) Jay
Nope. The person who fell over in the bull field didn't survive long
enough to get to a taxi. ;-)
trotsky
2018-06-13 09:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-0
42718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
If a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple due to his
religious beliefs - and a photographer can't decline to film their
ceremony - how on earth does a judge rationalize not serving supporters
of a particular partition? That defies all logic.
I discussed this case in another thread. The big take away is that the
Supreme Court didn't rule on the issue at all. Instead, the baker won
on procedural grounds, that his hearing before the human rights tribunal
wasn't a fair hearing by refusing to consider his civil right to free
exercise of religion.
At the state administrative hearing level, they should have worked out a
compromise or a practical accomodation. Instead, they ruled in favor of
the gay couple on the grounds of public accomodation and failed to
consider the baker's free exercise of religion rights at all.
The 7 to 2 was weird as there were two supporting opinions and one opinion
that partially supported the majority opinion. Thomas was the only justice
to touch the issue of whether cake decorating is speech/publishing,
which the other eight ignored.
Kennedy, writing for the majority, has in the past been a supporter of
gay rights but mostly gay rights.
It turned out this was the wrong case to be a test case to balance gay
rights versus religious rights. It's as if they accepted the case to
ignore the issue, but who knows.
Post by Rhino
If it matters to the Trump supporters, I suggest they appeal this to a
higher level court.
So what happens if BTR and I open a bakery.
Well, the two of you already have reps as masterbakers so that naturally
follows. Be careful, though, "BTR" doesn't like the semen filled cookies.
Your Name
2018-06-13 01:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Well, that's just *cruel*!
If there's ANY group that *needs* a drink...
But they've already had far too much to drink, which is why they voted
for the moron in the first place.
RichA
2018-06-12 23:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge says
Uh huh. How do they intend to determine which are?
Ubiquitous
2018-06-15 12:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Path: aioe.org!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.newsdemon.com:119
Subject: Yes!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 4
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:07:14 UTC
Organization: http://www.NewsDemon.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 04:07:14 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 938
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3050077911
http://www.latimes.com/sns-dailymeal-1910777-drink-bar-maga-trump-lawsuit-042718-20180427-story.html
Bars can refuse service to Trump supporters, judge say.
And you posted this off-topic article here because?

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topicsearchin/rec.arts.tv/subject$3Afaq$20AND$20subject$3Arec.art

https://www.newsdemon.com/terms.php
FORBIDDEN ACTIVITIES
NewsDemon has a zero-tolerance policy for the following activities,
performing any of them will cause permanent suspension of your
posting ability and possibly your ability to read newsgroups. These
- Posting Off-Topic: Posting something that does not belong in that
newsgroup, as indicated by its charter or FAQ.
[CC: ***@newsdemon.com]
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Loading...