Stacey Abrams still saying racism stole election

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Must be quite a vengeful and spiteful god, if it will send you to hell for decorating a cake.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

must be a spiteful person who wants to force you to make a cake and a vengeful person who sues you if you won't

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Must be quite a vengeful and spiteful god, if it will send you to hell for decorating a cake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t happen to agree with them either, but our opinions of their beliefs do not matter. what matters, is that the constitution says no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

how is this not an example of liberals attempting to impose their will on others pete? where’s that tolerance that liberals are so quick to demand for themselves, but so hesitant to show others who have different beliefs?

“tolerance” is a two way street, not a one way street.

The obama labor department said very clearly that muslims could not be forced to give up their religious beliefs while at work ( case where muslim truck drivers refused to transport alcohol). why don’t christians have that same right?

have fun answering that…

pete it’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you are supporting the rights of people who agree with you. the real test of your convictions is whether or not you are principled enough to say that those whose opinions you hate, also have those same rights. Liberals struggle mightily with that.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t happen to agree with them either, but our opinions of their beliefs do not matter. what matters, is that the constitution says no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

how is this not an example of liberals attempting to impose their will on others pete? where’s that tolerance that liberals are so quick to demand for themselves, but so hesitant to show others who have different beliefs?

“tolerance” is a two way street, not a one way street.

The obama labor department said very clearly that muslims could not be forced to give up their religious beliefs while at work ( case where muslim truck drivers refused to transport alcohol). why don’t christians have that same right?

have fun answering that…

pete it’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you are supporting the rights of people who agree with you. the real test of your convictions is whether or not you are principled enough to say that those whose opinions you hate, also have those same rights. Liberals struggle mightily with that.

Not sure why Christians and Republicans don’t understand

A Business is not religious unless you’re a televised Christian than it’s big bucks

the constitution says no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Only in the twisted logic of the religious right is discrimination the free exercise of religion. And God superseded laws .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Once again Jim you once again trying to compare things that are not remotely the same shocking.


The obama labor department said very clearly that muslims could not be forced to give up their religious beliefs while at work

Christians we’re upset because the we’re Muslim just like Obama

True and the law defended them and they won Jim. Guess why they were employees not the employer

the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company admitted that drivers often switched their assignments, meaning it would have been reasonable to accommodate the men's request, rather than firing them.

Because under the law it states

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business.

Man you love running loose with the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t happen to agree with them either, but our opinions of their beliefs do not matter. what matters, is that the constitution says no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

how is this not an example of liberals attempting to impose their will on others pete? where’s that tolerance that liberals are so quick to demand for themselves, but so hesitant to show others who have different beliefs?

“tolerance” is a two way street, not a one way street.

The obama labor department said very clearly that muslims could not be forced to give up their religious beliefs while at work ( case where muslim truck drivers refused to transport alcohol). why don’t christians have that same right?

have fun answering that…

pete it’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you are supporting the rights of people who agree with you. the real test of your convictions is whether or not you are principled enough to say that those whose opinions you hate, also have those same rights. Liberals struggle mightily with that.

Republicans voted AGAINST school lunches, Women, voting rights, infrastructure, veterans, Democracy, and insulin being capped at $35.

Because what really matters is tax cuts for the rich, fetuses not children and guns.

Republicans claim to be the law and order party.
Red states have higher crime, lower education, higher child poverty and poorer healthcare, fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what matters, is that the constitution says no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion.

what is your stance on the Jewish women who are suing Kentucky over the abortion law as they claim it violates their religious freedom?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by PaulS

what is your stance on the Jewish women who are suing Kentucky over the abortion law as they claim it violates their religious freedom?

Those stories aren’t on Fox nor is

Trump signed court documents he knew were false
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

what is your stance on the Jewish women who are suing Kentucky over the abortion law as they claim it violates their religious freedom?

Same as my stance on laws that prohibit human sacrifice for religious reasons.

A more pertinent example would be Muslim truck drivers who worked for a tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company in Michigan (I think Michigan?). They refused to carry alcohol for religious reasons and were fired. The Obama labor department sued on their behalf and won, saying that you can't ask people to abandon their religious beliefs at work.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company admitted that drivers often switched their assignments, meaning it would have been reasonable to accommodate the men's request, rather than firing them.

Because under the law it states

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ANd gay couples have other bakers, photographers, they can choose from.

So explain why that's a hardship. I'll wait.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ANd gay couples have other bakers, photographers, they can choose from.

So explain why that's a hardship. I'll wait.

keep playing Dump

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

keep playing Dump

SO I asked an obvious question, you knew I had a valid point, but you can't admit that ever, so you ignore my question and lob a vague insult and scurry off.

Whew.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

SO I asked an obvious question, you knew I had a valid point, but you can't admit that ever, so you ignore my question and lob a vague insult and scurry off.

Whew.

it's not an insult... Playing Dumb is not the same as calling you dumb


it's your inability to work out answers. that need no assistance ..

not sure how customer and business owner or Business and employee, cause you so much confusion? When the Law provided clear distinctions

yet

The US Department of Justice Department is suing the owners of a Rapid City, South Dakota hotel for saying on social media and elsewhere that it would not serve Native Americans.

The DOJ says the owners’ policies and practices violate the civil rights act.

In March, an owner of the Grand Gateway Hotel and Cheers Sports Lounge posted on Facebook that Natives were no longer allowed at the hotel and bar following an overnight shooting in their building. Days after, Native Americans tried booking rooms at the hotel twice and were allegedly denied service.

it's not hard to see which party supports these ideas and Why

Freedoms for me not for thee ...

lets see if religious excuses surface to defend these actions

https://listen.sdpb.org/crime-courts...y-hotel-owners

[wdmso]

Natives were no longer allowed at the hotel and bar following an overnight shooting in their building

what I find comical is

Open Carry is legal. South Dakota is a permitless carry state. Anyone 18 or older who can legally possess a firearm can carry openly or concealed in South Dakota without a permit/license.

and a shooting outrages them?

[Pete F.]

The Federalist: “the wholesale destruction of our traditions and the looming implosion of Western civilization” requires a shift to fascism: “The government will have to become, in the hands of conservatives, an instrument of renewal in American life … a blunt instrument indeed”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

keep playing Dump

this one is going in the Greatest Hits Collection

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it's not an insult... Playing Dumb is not the same as calling you dumb


it's your inability to work out answers. that need no assistance ..

not sure how customer and business owner or Business and employee, cause you so much confusion? When the Law provided clear distinctions

yet

The US Department of Justice Department is suing the owners of a Rapid City, South Dakota hotel for saying on social media and elsewhere that it would not serve Native Americans.

The DOJ says the owners’ policies and practices violate the civil rights act.

In March, an owner of the Grand Gateway Hotel and Cheers Sports Lounge posted on Facebook that Natives were no longer allowed at the hotel and bar following an overnight shooting in their building. Days after, Native Americans tried booking rooms at the hotel twice and were allegedly denied service.

it's not hard to see which party supports these ideas and Why

Freedoms for me not for thee ...

lets see if religious excuses surface to defend these actions

https://listen.sdpb.org/crime-courts...y-hotel-owners

ah, the christian baker isn’t saying he won’t serve the gay couple. the couple are free to come in and patronize the store. But the baker doesn’t want to actively participate in the wedding. Big difference.

there’s no sign in the bakery door telling gays to get out. You’re very wrong in what’s happening. Your example of excluding native americans isn’t even close to accurate. The muslim truck driver case is in point. Americans cannot be forced to disregard their religious beliefs in order to keep their jobs.

Wayne, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say those rights only protect liberals. they apply equally to all of us. The left is happy to offer those rights to themselves, and just as willing to deny them to those who have differing opinions.

Just use a different baker. Why is that hard? This isn’t about tolerance. it’s about totalitarianism.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ah, the christian baker isn’t saying he won’t serve the gay couple. the couple are free to come in and patronize the store. But the baker doesn’t want to actively participate in the wedding. Big difference.

there’s no sign in the bakery door telling gays to get out. You’re very wrong in what’s happening. Your example of excluding native americans isn’t even close to accurate. The muslim truck driver case is in point. Americans cannot be forced to disregard their religious beliefs in order to keep their jobs.

Wayne, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say those rights only protect liberals. they apply equally to all of us. The left is happy to offer those rights to themselves, and just as willing to deny them to those who have differing opinions.

Just use a different baker. Why is that hard? This isn’t about tolerance. it’s about totalitarianism.

Only you and the Christian Right think baking a cake is as you say is some how being a participant.. as if they got an invitation

With that logic the rental place could choose to not rent them chairs tables or a tent . A hotel could refuse to provide a room .

Or I could refuse a charter to any religion . By just claiming my religious believes don’t allow it

I get it you support discrimination

What newest chat has phrase

. Have fun answering that .


It’s funny you claim it’s about totalitarianism. But would vote for Trump .

I suggest you look up the meaning of totalitarianism and it’s place in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Only you and the Christian Right think baking a cake is as you say is some how being a participant.. as if they got an invitation

With that logic the rental place could choose to not rent them chairs tables or a tent . A hotel could refuse to provide a room .

Or I could refuse a charter to any religion . By just claiming my religious believes don’t allow it

I get it you support discrimination

What newest chat has phrase

. Have fun answering that .


It’s funny you claim it’s about totalitarianism. But would vote for Trump .

I suggest you look up the meaning of totalitarianism and it’s place in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Only you and the Christian Right think baking a cake is as you say is some how being a participant.. as if they got an invitation "

You're not smart enough to grasp it. I didn't say the baker (or photographer, or florist or whatever) is a guest. That's the point, they aren't there as a guest, they are a part of the wedding, not just a guest to it.

I was strongly in favor of gay marriage, when Obama and Hilary were adamantly opposed to it. Which, because you never ever disagree with the leaders of the left, means I was in favor of gay marriage long begore you were.

I'm also in favor of the idea that the Bill Of Rights isn't limited to those that you or I happen to agree with. You disagree, you'd limit those rights in cases where you don't agree with the person trying to exercise those rights. But that's not how it works, that's exactly why every courthouse has a statue of Lady Justice wearing a blindfold. That's what the blindfold represents.

Just use another damned baker. One who wants to participate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

With that logic the rental place could choose to not rent them chairs tables or a tent . A hotel could refuse to provide a room .

Or I could refuse a charter to any religion . By just claiming my religious believes don’t allow it


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same logic as telling Muslim truck drivers that they cannot be forced to transport alchohol.

"Or I could refuse a charter to any religion "

Only if the gay couple wanted you to marry them on the boat.

As with many issues, you're missing the point. The christian baker isn't saying a gay person can't walk in and buy some cannolis and take them out with him. He's not refusing all service because the person is gay. He's saying (because he has the right to say it), that he doesn't want to play a role in the wedding, because it violates his religion.

WDMSO, where was the liberal outrage just a few years ago, when Obama and Hilary were adamantly opposed to gay marriage? The baker isn't saying they can't get married, he's just saying "leave me out of it". Obama and Hilary were saying very recently that they shouldn't be allowed to get married, and Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize when that was his opinion.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Same logic as telling Muslim truck drivers that they cannot be forced to transport alchohol.

"Or I could refuse a charter to any religion "

Only if the gay couple wanted you to marry them on the boat.

As with many issues, you're missing the point. The christian baker isn't saying a gay person can't walk in and buy some cannolis and take them out with him. He's not refusing all service because the person is gay. He's saying (because he has the right to say it), that he doesn't want to play a role in the wedding, because it violates his religion.

WDMSO, where was the liberal outrage just a few years ago, when Obama and Hilary were adamantly opposed to gay marriage? The baker isn't saying they can't get married, he's just saying "leave me out of it". Obama and Hilary were saying very recently that they shouldn't be allowed to get married, and Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize when that was his opinion.

Same logic as telling Muslim truck drivers that they cannot be forced to transport alchohol.

Classic Jim just keep beating your dead horse

Try reading the laws. I posted it might actually help your understanding of why those Truck drivers won their case

and why they don’t remotely have anything to do with your baker

Whom you always defend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Same logic as telling Muslim truck drivers that they cannot be forced to transport alchohol.

Classic Jim just keep beating your dead horse

Try reading the laws. I posted it might actually help your understanding of why those Truck drivers won their case

and why they don’t remotely have anything to do with your baker

Whom you always defend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m defending the constitution. read the amendment,?tell me how you can comply with that and force a christian baker to participate in a gay wedding. it says no law shall prevent the free exercise of religion. go ahead and explain how forcing christians to participate in gay weddings, doesn’t violate that right?

you also posted immigration laws about asylum
seekers, but left out that asylum seekers must cross at ports or entry or they are committing a crime. isn’t it convenient you just happened to leave that out.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m defending the constitution. read the amendment,?tell me how you can comply with that and force a christian baker to participate in a gay wedding. it says no law shall prevent the free exercise of religion. go ahead and explain how forcing christians to participate in gay weddings, doesn’t violate that right?

you also posted immigration laws about asylum
seekers, but left out that asylum seekers must cross at ports or entry or they are committing a crime. isn’t it convenient you just happened to leave that out.

Wrong again

Seeking asylum is legal—even during a pandemic. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to request the opportunity to apply for asylum.

"There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says IRC director of asylum and immigration legal services Olga Byrne. “You just have to show up."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Wrong again

Seeking asylum is legal—even during a pandemic. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to request the opportunity to apply for asylum.

"There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says IRC director of asylum and immigration legal services Olga Byrne. “You just have to show up."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i listed the actual law. read it.

[wdmso]

forcing christians to participate in gay

How is someone buying a cake twisted into forcing.

The baker to participate in someone’s
wedding ?

So if I sell you flowers am I participating in your wedding?

How about a rental place who rented chairs tables and a tent . Are they also participating in the wedding

I asked before but got the usual fluff

So now republicans and conservatives twist and create a new meaning of participation

To fit their narrative of religion is under attack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

forcing christians to participate in gay

How is someone buying a cake twisted into forcing.

The baker to participate in someone’s
wedding ?

So if I sell you flowers am I participating in your wedding?

How about a rental place who rented chairs tables and a tent . Are they also participating in the wedding

I asked before but got the usual fluff

So now republicans and conservatives twist and create a new meaning of participation

To fit their narrative of religion is under attack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you bake a cake for a wedding, you might think you’re participating in the wedding. the cake is a part of the wedding. the baker is contributing to the wedding.

how about the photographer? is he a component of the wedding?

if i said 2 + 2 =4, you’d say no it doesn’t.

when democrats say catholics can’t be supreme
court justices, that’s attacking religion.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you bake a cake for a wedding, you might think you’re participating in the wedding. the cake is a part of the wedding. the baker is contributing to the wedding.

how about the photographer? is he a component of the wedding?

if i said 2 + 2 =4, you’d say no it doesn’t.

when democrats say catholics can’t be supreme
court justices, that’s attacking religion.

So you still can’t tell us how baking a cake (service) is participating I am shocked

when democrats say catholics can’t be supreme
court justices, that’s attacking religion

You live in a fantasy Jim

five, maybe six, Catholic conservative justices and one Catholic liberal justice (Sonia Sotomayor), seven out of nine justices are of the same religion.

As is the POTUS

So much for your attack on religion


next you’ll be telling me someone robs a Bank in a Ford Mustang !

Ford motor company participated in the robbery
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you still can’t tell us how baking a cake (service) is participating I am shocked

when democrats say catholics can’t be supreme
court justices, that’s attacking religion

You live in a fantasy Jim

five, maybe six, Catholic conservative justices and one Catholic liberal justice (Sonia Sotomayor), seven out of nine justices are of the same religion.

As is the POTUS

So much for your attack on religion


next you’ll be telling me someone robs a Bank in a Ford Mustang !

Ford motor company participated in the robbery
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t tell you how. you just won’t admit it because it does t advance your ideology.

someone who provides a key item for the wedding that’s enjoyed by all guests of the wedding and is paid by the people who’s for the wedding, is contributing to the wedding, as is the DJ, photographer, florist, etc.

does anyone who disagrees with you, ever have a valid opinion? Ever?

You’re saying the left didn’t object to Barrett’s catholicism?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/...her-faith/amp/

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

does anyone who disagrees with you, ever have a valid opinion? Ever?

that's a firm no...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So now republicans and conservatives twist and create a new meaning of participation

To fit their narrative

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

leftists never twist and create new meanings for words to fit their narratives....well, almost never...actually...regularly

in the words of PaulS...."they do it 1000 times more but you are upset about this"

[Jim in CT]

wayne, when engaged couples prepare. budget for the wedding ( which you were opposed to until obama and hilary told you to support), why do they include money for the baker, florist, DJ, limo driver, etc? BevUse those people are part of the wedding.

you are the one trying to redefine “participate”.