You too could be punished for your religious beliefs if you "speak" them in public, as Facebook most assuredly is. Likewise, even though you must register here to "talk", just like Facebook, any comments you make here are public statements.
Every time I call the ex-president Barry the Weasel, I open myself to charges of hate for pointing out that he's a lying sack of narcissistic pathology. You could be prosecuted by a judge in Los Alamos for stating you don't think 3 women and a goat shouldn't be married. ( I agree with you about the goat, btw )
My initial response to this kind of thing involves the common phrase wishing you sexual intercourse. My carefully considered response to this kind of thing is the same with a willingness to defend against bodily harm.
This is a good sign on the road to hell. It may be isolated and the road continue it's path to Dante's circles, but it's a tiny glint of sunshine on a vast darkness.
I'm in a horrible sense relieved that I no longer have to care is I'm being racist. If I will always be racist, and always be a demon, then I just don't have to worry about it.
This would be quite a load off my shoulders if I felt any weight at all. Lucky for me I'm an insensitive lout who thinks he sees past the racism to the heart of the matter, which is this video's useful idiot will be first up against the wall.
I would no more argue with her religious beliefs than I would argue "your's" ( generic you ) to believe in Flying Saucers, or Stonehedge Spirits, or The One And Only God of the Bible... ( who points out in Genesis to the other Gods how nifty his creation is, but I assume you have a clever answer to that I've never heard that doesn't invalidate the notion of Divine ghost writing. )
I do feel free to question her, and anyone's faith. ( likewise, feel free to question my own, fair is fair. Something the Snowflakes have never been taught, apparently )
Especially the Flying Saucer thing. I almost always have questions for them.
Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2017 - 07:02 pm:
If the orchard is an LLC, the argument they cannot discriminate MIGHT hold water. Since the orchard appears to also be their home I doubt it.
The militants on the same sex cause seem to feel they have a "right", and are attempting to force their agenda through the courts. (OK that's what courts are for.) A good example of enforcing civil rights through power of law ( A.K.A. "at gunpoint") is the National Guard escorting children to school to enforce their right to an equal education. Right and just in my mind, but if some the teachers had resigned in protest, I would have no problem with that either. It has always been the RIGHT of free Americans to decline any job, anywhere,if they so choose. (The obvious consequence is you likely will not be paid for the day if you throw down your shovel and walk off the job. That seems fair enough to me).
My issue, is their ultimate (and to my mind myopic), goal is to use power of law to compel one individual, to perform a service for another against that persons free will. We used to do that in America and we nearly tore our country apart in ending the practice. Some parts of the world still do this. When you can use rule of law, guns, or worse yet, both, to force one group of people to work for another, it's called slavery.
I'm a crumudgeonly, but tolerant soul, but even I can't let THAT go without calling it out. Same sex militants, using forceful means to project their beliefs onto others, are no different than nazis or klansmen.
Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2017 - 07:56 pm:
My understanding is most restaurants and wedding businesses are considered by the courts to be within the public domain.
It seems to me to be difficult to justify wedding planning discrimination on the basis of religious belief without simultaneously justifying restaurant discrimination on the basis of religious belief. And I don't see Americans ready to return to segregated restaurants.
I think during the late 1960s many segregated restaurants became private clubs to try to skirt integration laws. While they say most were closed because they were shown to be "illegitimate private clubs" that implies that some were able to continue.
It seems the upcoming Supreme Court case on the Colorado baker will necessarily clarify this issue.
Actually, there is. But since Maxine doesn't believe in the rule of law, not men, she probably never actually read the Constitution.
It made me think of nothing so much as P. J. O’Rourke’s assertion in one of his books that half of what was wrong behind the Iron Curtain could be fixed with a bottle of all-purpose cleaner, a roll of paper towels, and an American to use them both.
IMHO The Parable of the Kosher Deli is only partially flawed. Towards the end of the parable the deli is described as a "church institution that serves the public" but they are not serving the pork eating public, which would seem to be part of the public. They are serving a sort of Orthodox Jew thinking public of their own invention, which is distinctly different than the unfiltered public.
The parable also assumes equal services are available nearby which I would like to think is the case in all US states, but with possible exceptions coming from the Supreme Court, this is theoretically not a given.
If I were King for a day and could grant exceptions I would for religious based businesses that explicitly wish to endorse specific religious views and are associated with the paperwork of a specific church. Lay it out on your website and in a little note posted somewhere very visible onsite, and spell out exactly who should do what and what color you should avoid or whatever your religious inspiration is. Weirdos can get married in the state capitol if no one else will do it.
You run a bakery. You can have any religious beliefs you like. That's the law. You can refuse service to anyone you want. That's the law. You don't run a religious institution. It's a bakery.
You refuse service to native Americans. As a group. That breaks the law. You refuse service to gays as a group. That breaks the law. You refuse to bake cakes for the Klan rally. That's murky. Your right to refuse service impacts their right not to be? Considered monsters?
In that last case, an individual refusal to participate with a group event, the law is less than clear. Public opinion in my town would be on your side. In your town? In any such case you have to be willing to give up all the business the Klan folk don't have to buy from you because you are not friendly to them.
Change the group, change the perception. But it is still a collision between rights and obligations.
My opinion is you suffer the consequences of refusal to service a group by losing their business. That's up to you and no law is involved except common sense. MIght lose your business from lack of customers. The town might lose a bakery, & if you're the only one, have to go to the next town for cakes. So be it.
I think we can agree that if you refuse to sell to black people or red people or Catholics or Democrats that you are violating laws written to protect all people from racist jerks.
It's a tougher call when asked to "participate" in someone's wedding or birthday. .. is selling a cake participation?
I'm not sure where you draw the line between your freedom to be a jerk and other's to be required to put up with you.
I have no problem with your anti Klan or gay or negro prejudices losing you their business even if it ruined you financially. Your choices have consequences.
I do have a problem if the cops/judge/etc. Order you to do business if you don't want to with a group, no matter how stupid or righteous I feel your refusal is.
But if the shop down the street won't sell to whites or wiccans or veterans or..... then maybe that shop does deserve legal prosecution.
The deli problem is simpler and obvious. I worked at a 7/11 whose owner chose not to sell certain items. Those items were requested. No matter. Her choice not to supply them to everyone is her right. In this case it was nudity containing magazines and rolling papers. No Penthouse or Bugle. She also chose to forgo the profits from missed sales. College town. Closest 24/7 store. Lots of missed sales.
In my case it let me mock stoner college students. I'd offer to sell them an apple. I'd tell them if they couldn't figure out how to get stoned without rolling papers they didn't deserve to.
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2017 - 09:24 am:
November 4, 2017? So this is when the left plans to start the new civil war? It's not that I have a real fear that they could possibly be successful in this venture, but there is real potential for bloodshed that should never happen. I will say that I'm thrilled to have moved away from where this sort of crap is likely to get started. If they do start, I look forward to seeing them put down fast and hard. My bet though, they will fail to start. I guess we'll know in about 6 weeks.
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2017 - 03:41 pm:
Property seizures is 100% Mao Zedong. "Wealth redistribution". Rob from the rich to give to the poor! The rich will be poor and the poor will be rich!
Except the math doesn't work that way. Assets taken from the rich, divided by 99% of the population, doesn't leave much to go around. (don't forget the "community organizers" taking their "fare" share). And it's a one-time shot, not a sustainment plan. Here's your $10, now go throw rocks at the men with guns.
(Message edited by torquehd on September 23, 2017)
The teacher that insists that her grade school students address her as zir. Under threat of punishment. Zir will magnanimously forgive the first transgressions against the royalty.
The push to label the Constitution as obsolete so it can be replaced by raw power. ( in the hands of the woke )
And the end of cash. So much easier to crack down on the black market. But that's the excuse. The real attraction of a cashless society is the ability to steal your money silently by the State. See European Union and Cyprus.
Hypothetical situation. Comrade Mayor de Blasio decides he wants to expand the free school lunch program to all New Yorkers. He needs to pay for it. So everyone in his reach pays 2% of his bank account. No permission, no notice, no way to stop it. You wake up in the morning 2% poorer.
NY State passed a law in the middle of the night requiring subjects to sell their property out of state or be prosecuted. No notice. Obey or be arrested and sent to prison.
The PURPOSE of the law was to make criminals out of millions of people. It successfully did so. Unexpected was that millions refused to play and surrender to the Gestapo. This situation is ongoing. If the Emperor of New York had the ability to take their money based on his whim, secret informants, sales records stolen by force by his police, ( all actions ongoing and unconstitutional but people are going to prison ) how much easier it would be to punish those unworthy of his rule. ( Governor Cuomo told anyone who disagrees with him to leave his State. He meant it )
'“The evidence in this case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect, fueled by rage against Republican legislators, decided to commit an act of terrorism as that term is defined by the Code of Virginia. See Va. Code §18.46.4,” Bryan L. Porter wrote in the report.'