Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
So how do you feel about the civil rights movement and what the Johnson administration did?
Lyndon Johnson made civil rights one of his highest priorities, coupling it with a whites war on poverty. However in creasing the shrill opposition to the War in Vietnam, coupled with the cost of the war, undercut support for his domestic programs.[215]
Under Kennedy, major civil rights legislation had been stalled in Congress his assassination changed everything. On one hand president Lyndon Johnson was a much more skillful negotiator than Kennedy but he had behind him a powerful national momentum demanding immediate action on moral and emotional grounds. Demands for immediate action originated from unexpected directions, especially white Protestant church groups. The Justice Department, led by Robert Kennedy, moved from a posture of defending Kennedy from the quagmire minefield of racial politics to acting to fulfill his legacy. The violent death and public reaction dramatically moved the moderate Republicans, led by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, whose support was the margin of victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act immediately ended de jure (legal) segregation and the era of Jim Crow.[216]
With the civil rights movement at full blast, Lyndon Johnson coupled black entrepreneurship with his war on poverty, setting up special program in the Small Business Administration, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and other agencies.[217] This time there was money for loans designed to boost minority business ownership. Richard Nixon greatly expanded the program, setting up the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE) in the expectation that black entrepreneurs would help defuse racial tensions and possibly support his reelection .
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
And I'm betting there would be a load of people from thise countries helping us. You think the people wouldn't prefer to live and prosper in their own country. People don't want to flee to another country and have their families seperated.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
And I'm betting there would be a load of people from thise countries helping us. You think the people wouldn't prefer to live and prosper in their own country. People don't want to flee to another country and have their families seperated.
It’s true that people don’t want to flee to other countries, but it’s also true that people don’t generally want another country’s army invading them.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
And I'm betting there would be a load of people from thise countries helping us. You think the people wouldn't prefer to live and prosper in their own country. People don't want to flee to another country and have their families seperated.
It’s true that people don’t want to flee to other countries, but it’s also true that people don’t generally want another country’s army invading them.
Unless their country has been overtaken by corrupt crimminals. The people down there are trying to form their own "armies" to combat the drug lords down there. This applies to anyone. Don't defend the corrupt. It makes it look like you have a stake in it.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
And I'm betting there would be a load of people from thise countries helping us. You think the people wouldn't prefer to live and prosper in their own country. People don't want to flee to another country and have their families seperated.
It’s true that people don’t want to flee to other countries, but it’s also true that people don’t generally want another country’s army invading them.
Unless their country has been overtaken by corrupt crimminals. The people down there are trying to form their own "armies" to combat the drug lords down there. This applies to anyone. Don't defend the corrupt. It makes it look like you have a stake in it.
yeah, often is defending the corrupt. HAHA. that's exactly what he is doing. HAHAH
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
So you think that for the last thousand years, people just "chose" to be gay? Were they intrigued by the thought of being ridiculed, isolated, persecuted, and murdered? Perhaps they thought it was a good idea to have fewer benefits than the rest of society. Odd that it's mentioned in the bible, Greek history and every culture since the beginning of time, but it's simply a bad choice.
The comment referenced the comparison of being gay to one’s skin color or gender. I’d love to hear about the science behind that, since there’s no genetic code that makes someone gay. You say otherwise thoug?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
Unless this is a joke, this statement shows you have really no understanding of genetics and the state of the science related to heritability.
So there’s a gene that makes someone gay now? Do explain.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
So you think that for the last thousand years, people just "chose" to be gay? Were they intrigued by the thought of being ridiculed, isolated, persecuted, and murdered? Perhaps they thought it was a good idea to have fewer benefits than the rest of society. Odd that it's mentioned in the bible, Greek history and every culture since the beginning of time, but it's simply a bad choice.
The comment referenced the comparison of being gay to one’s skin color or gender. I’d love to hear about the science behind that, since there’s no genetic code that makes someone gay. You say otherwise thoug?
Ah yeah.. So are you all happy that the president signed an order to keep families together while going through the process? Does Trump get kudos for that.
Happy? Not how I would describe it I guess. It's unfortunate no matter what, but non-separation is better. As for your second question, no. You don't get credit for an issue you created. Forgiveness could be a possibility if there was ever any indication a mistake was made, but we all know that's never going to happen.
How about you, happy? Do you think he deserves kudos?
You've spent most of your time the last few posts just poking at the hornet nest for fun. Maybe a serious response this time?
If you actually read what i've posted in the past you would've seen that I've already talked about my feelings towards the issues that are going on with immigration. this has been going on for years it didn't just start with this administration. It has been going on through all the administrations. and like I said before they only let the immigrants into this country when they need them and that's a sad situation. I'm glad he made the change in policy. I do agree there has to be a vetting process to keep criminals, terrorists and traffickers from getting in. I hope that they're making sure all that are being detained are safe from any criminals that may be awaiting the process. It seems when it's getting close to election time, the party in office suddenly starts to change their immigration policies to get the votes for their party like the past administration for example. That doesn't make them a great president or senator or congressman, it just makes them a politician just like all before them. It's wrong to use these people as your political stepping stone. It's election time and the politicians are coming out in force to investigate the issue and "help" that's why all this is being brought up. They were seperating children from parents in the past administration. Once politicians get elected it'll back to the same. Immigrants should be welcome in this country as long as they don't expect a free ride. Come here to work and spend your money here, not to get in and then collect benefits that aren't available to the people here.
Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.
Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.
I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?
Where did you learn this from?
Alex Jones Breitbart Focksnooze Infomax RT Richard Spencer Daily Stormer
Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble.
That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble. Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
I never said a thing about discrimination laws, perhaps you meant to quote another user’s post?z
Ah yeah.. So are you all happy that the president signed an order to keep families together while going through the process? Does Trump get kudos for that.
Happy? Not how I would describe it I guess. It's unfortunate no matter what, but non-separation is better. As for your second question, no. You don't get credit for an issue you created. Forgiveness could be a possibility if there was ever any indication a mistake was made, but we all know that's never going to happen.
How about you, happy? Do you think he deserves kudos?
You've spent most of your time the last few posts just poking at the hornet nest for fun. Maybe a serious response this time?
If you actually read what i've posted in the past you would've seen that I've already talked about my feelings towards the issues that are going on with immigration. this has been going on for years it didn't just start with this administration. It has been going on through all the administrations. and like I said before they only let the immigrants into this country when they need them and that's a sad situation. I'm glad he made the change in policy. I do agree there has to be a vetting process to keep criminals, terrorists and traffickers from getting in. I hope that they're making sure all that are being detained are safe from any criminals that may be awaiting the process. It seems when it's getting close to election time, the party in office suddenly starts to change their immigration policies to get the votes for their party like the past administration for example. That doesn't make them a great president or senator or congressman, it just makes them a politician just like all before them. It's wrong to use these people as your political stepping stone. It's election time and the politicians are coming out in force to investigate the issue and "help" that's why all this is being brought up. They were seperating children from parents in the past administration. Once politicians get elected it'll back to the same. Immigrants should be welcome in this country as long as they don't expect a free ride. Come here to work and spend your money here, not to get in and then collect benefits that aren't available to the people here.
Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.
Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.
I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?
Where did you learn this from?
Alex Jones Breitbart Focksnooze Infomax RT Richard Spencer Daily Stormer
Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble.
That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble. Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
My family were immigrants not so long ago. My great grand parents came here on my grandmother's side and my grandfather immigrated here. Your statements are ridiculous.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
I never said a thing about discrimination laws, perhaps you meant to quote another user’s post?z
but that's what you were responding to, that "comparing skin color and gender to your sexual ORIENTATION is outlandish" in the context of discrimination and being refused service.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
I never said a thing about discrimination laws, perhaps you meant to quote another user’s post?z
but that's what you were responding to, that "comparing skin color and gender to your sexual ORIENTATION is outlandish" in the context of discrimination and being refused service.
Oh I didn’t care what context it was in, its outlandish period. I didn’t read any of the arguments, just saw that line and knew it was bs.
I don’t even know what is being debated in here currently. The cake baker? Immigration? Gay rights? I haven’t been reading, like I said, I was skimming and saw someone try to say that gender and skin color was like a sexual preference and was like “wait, absolutely not. “
Ah yeah.. So are you all happy that the president signed an order to keep families together while going through the process? Does Trump get kudos for that.
Happy? Not how I would describe it I guess. It's unfortunate no matter what, but non-separation is better. As for your second question, no. You don't get credit for an issue you created. Forgiveness could be a possibility if there was ever any indication a mistake was made, but we all know that's never going to happen.
How about you, happy? Do you think he deserves kudos?
You've spent most of your time the last few posts just poking at the hornet nest for fun. Maybe a serious response this time?
If you actually read what i've posted in the past you would've seen that I've already talked about my feelings towards the issues that are going on with immigration. this has been going on for years it didn't just start with this administration. It has been going on through all the administrations. and like I said before they only let the immigrants into this country when they need them and that's a sad situation. I'm glad he made the change in policy. I do agree there has to be a vetting process to keep criminals, terrorists and traffickers from getting in. I hope that they're making sure all that are being detained are safe from any criminals that may be awaiting the process. It seems when it's getting close to election time, the party in office suddenly starts to change their immigration policies to get the votes for their party like the past administration for example. That doesn't make them a great president or senator or congressman, it just makes them a politician just like all before them. It's wrong to use these people as your political stepping stone. It's election time and the politicians are coming out in force to investigate the issue and "help" that's why all this is being brought up. They were seperating children from parents in the past administration. Once politicians get elected it'll back to the same. Immigrants should be welcome in this country as long as they don't expect a free ride. Come here to work and spend your money here, not to get in and then collect benefits that aren't available to the people here.
Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.
Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.
I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?
Where did you learn this from?
Alex Jones Breitbart Focksnooze Infomax RT Richard Spencer Daily Stormer
Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble.
That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble. Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
My family were immigrants not so long ago. My great grand parents came here on my grandmother's side and my grandfather immigrated here. Your statements are ridiculous.
Um, yeah, every white American's ancestors were immigrants. Do you seriously think this excludes them from being anti-immigrant now?? Because THAT would be ridiculous. And what about my statements are ridiculous? Are you trying to claim that immigrants do not have a positive economic role in America, as you suggested with your little list of "benefits" (and all your other posts about it)?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Ah yeah.. So are you all happy that the president signed an order to keep families together while going through the process? Does Trump get kudos for that.
Happy? Not how I would describe it I guess. It's unfortunate no matter what, but non-separation is better. As for your second question, no. You don't get credit for an issue you created. Forgiveness could be a possibility if there was ever any indication a mistake was made, but we all know that's never going to happen.
How about you, happy? Do you think he deserves kudos?
You've spent most of your time the last few posts just poking at the hornet nest for fun. Maybe a serious response this time?
If you actually read what i've posted in the past you would've seen that I've already talked about my feelings towards the issues that are going on with immigration. this has been going on for years it didn't just start with this administration. It has been going on through all the administrations. and like I said before they only let the immigrants into this country when they need them and that's a sad situation. I'm glad he made the change in policy. I do agree there has to be a vetting process to keep criminals, terrorists and traffickers from getting in. I hope that they're making sure all that are being detained are safe from any criminals that may be awaiting the process. It seems when it's getting close to election time, the party in office suddenly starts to change their immigration policies to get the votes for their party like the past administration for example. That doesn't make them a great president or senator or congressman, it just makes them a politician just like all before them. It's wrong to use these people as your political stepping stone. It's election time and the politicians are coming out in force to investigate the issue and "help" that's why all this is being brought up. They were seperating children from parents in the past administration. Once politicians get elected it'll back to the same. Immigrants should be welcome in this country as long as they don't expect a free ride. Come here to work and spend your money here, not to get in and then collect benefits that aren't available to the people here.
Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.
Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.
I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?
Where did you learn this from?
Alex Jones Breitbart Focksnooze Infomax RT Richard Spencer Daily Stormer
Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble.
That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble. Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
European Immigrants went about to systematically destroy every thing great about NA ... As a descendent from immigrants the worst thing to ever happen to First Nations people, the wildlife and absolute Canada the beautiful country they stole from the First Nations people. Whats worst yet, is why the fuck do First Nations people need to live under laws created by their European conquerers .... make no mistake we are living on STOLEN LAND with more than enough money and resources to make it right with our First Nations peoples. And JT is full of shit in his empty promises ... cash will fixl a lot of whats wrong with our first nations people.
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
And now loonybin Maxine Waters has issued demands to step up the harassment. Someone is going to get killed because of this.
I have to say, I didn't see the video, but I saw the quotes, and I was unnerved by it. I don't think harassment is the right way to go at ALL. It needs to be respectful and peaceful. otherwise you just create an even bigger monster in your adversary.
Now I hope you can begin to understand my point. I can't afford a private security guard like Michael Bloomberg and nobody is renting one for me like David Hogg. I have to ensure my own safety. When is the DNC going to condemn her comments or are they ok with this harassment?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
I never said a thing about discrimination laws, perhaps you meant to quote another user’s post?z
but that's what you were responding to, that "comparing skin color and gender to your sexual ORIENTATION is outlandish" in the context of discrimination and being refused service.
Oh I didn’t care what context it was in, its outlandish period. I didn’t read any of the arguments, just saw that line and knew it was bs.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.
Lol you guys need to learn how to read. I’m certainly not arguing being gay is a choice, I never said that. I’m also not saying folks aren’t born gay. The comment that being gay is like a person’s skin color or gender is false. Both of those are chromosome/geneticly decided outcomes, gay/straight is not nor has there been anythibg discovered. It’s all in the wording, but to compare skin color and gender to your sexual preference is outlandish.
It's absolutely not in the context of discrimination. You're turning to stupid semantics to avoid the real conversation I think. You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
I never said a thing about discrimination laws, perhaps you meant to quote another user’s post?z
but that's what you were responding to, that "comparing skin color and gender to your sexual ORIENTATION is outlandish" in the context of discrimination and being refused service.
Oh I didn’t care what context it was in, its outlandish period. I didn’t read any of the arguments, just saw that line and knew it was bs.
context matters.
More than anything.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Not if you believe in private property rights.
This is, of course, the famous argument that kind of blew up in the Republicans' faces in the 1964 election and caused the most major "migration" of minorities from the Republican party to the Democratic party. But even if it cost them that election, it definitely paved the way for the current Republican stance of "What I own, I OWN AND CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT."
A brief summary for those that don't know: Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee, was against the Civil Rights Act. Not because he was necessarily against black rights or equality (though he probably was), but he argued if you OWN something (a diner, a store, etc), you should be able to do whatever you want with it; including turning away people you didn't want to serve. Minorities of course saw this as "Well that's easy for you to say, nobody's going to turn away some old white guy" and have been voting democrat ever since.
The beauty of a free market. Actions come with consequences.
Just like crossing into another country without permission.
Comments
So how do you feel about the civil rights movement and what the Johnson administration did?
Johnson administration: 1963–1968
Lyndon Johnson made civil rights one of his highest priorities, coupling it with a whites war on poverty. However in creasing the shrill opposition to the War in Vietnam, coupled with the cost of the war, undercut support for his domestic programs.[215]
Under Kennedy, major civil rights legislation had been stalled in Congress his assassination changed everything. On one hand president Lyndon Johnson was a much more skillful negotiator than Kennedy but he had behind him a powerful national momentum demanding immediate action on moral and emotional grounds. Demands for immediate action originated from unexpected directions, especially white Protestant church groups. The Justice Department, led by Robert Kennedy, moved from a posture of defending Kennedy from the quagmire minefield of racial politics to acting to fulfill his legacy. The violent death and public reaction dramatically moved the moderate Republicans, led by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, whose support was the margin of victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act immediately ended de jure (legal) segregation and the era of Jim Crow.[216]
With the civil rights movement at full blast, Lyndon Johnson coupled black entrepreneurship with his war on poverty, setting up special program in the Small Business Administration, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and other agencies.[217] This time there was money for loans designed to boost minority business ownership. Richard Nixon greatly expanded the program, setting up the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE) in the expectation that black entrepreneurs would help defuse racial tensions and possibly support his reelection .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Johnson_administration:_1963–1968
Do you disagree with this kind of intervention? I would argue that when human rights are being infringed upon government should do what's right.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
You seem to not know much about discrimination laws and who they apply to and why. Maybe you should read up on it more? Or maybe you're just playing dumb, I'm not sure.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And what about my statements are ridiculous? Are you trying to claim that immigrants do not have a positive economic role in America, as you suggested with your little list of "benefits" (and all your other posts about it)?
www.headstonesband.com
Just like crossing into another country without permission.