One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Conservatives Appear to Want it Both Ways
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
May 22, 2020 19:38:39   #
Seth
 
Rose42 wrote:
The baker was targeted for an agenda. Your meme is disingenuous


Well put.

| Reply
May 22, 2020 20:13:35   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Seth wrote:
Actually, I have never regretted my vote for Donald Trump and I will definitely vote to re-elect him.

Your ilk's just frustrated because after Obama started the demolition job on America, you and the rest of the polezniye duraki were really sure that once Hillary the Walking Crime Wave© took over the left-controlled Democrat wrecking ball America would be finished, our sovereignty a thing of the past, our economy a shambles and the last semblance of our morality and our Constitution consigned to the scrap heap of history...

... and then surprise, surprise, surprise...

https://youtu.be/2TnkJ8_BmSI

...American patriotism prevailed and Donald Trump won the election, and he immediately began reversing all the damage done under Obama.

This is why he has been under attack every second since he was elected. All the hard work your Bolshevik heroes, all those corrupt traitors championing your anti-America cause and their deep state flunkies under the Obama-Clinton umbrella of corruption whose aim was to undermine our Constitutional republic for their globalist patrons.

Of course you hate President Trump. He is the man who set your political icons' attempts to destroy our country back years.

So you and the rest of the useful fools accuse him of all the corrupt practices that your own politicians are guilty of while ignoring the profound corruption of the Pelosis, the Obamas, the Bidens, Kerrys, Clintons and the rest of that crowd, the blatant lies of Adam Schitt and his cronies...

It's a good thing for you that you are living today rather than a couple of centuries ago, because back then they used to hang your ilk.

It's also a good thing for you that you live in America, because in the kind of country your kind wants America to become, the freedom of speech you're enjoying to denigrate the president would be replaced by a knock on your door at zero dark hundred hours, and you would disappear without a trace.

That said, have a nice day.
Actually, I have never regretted my vote for Donal... (show quote)


Yes, absolutely correct. The first people any totalitarian regime eliminates (this is the history of the twentieth century) are those who helped them get into power. These are the useful idiots who are dispensible. next come the judges, elected officials from the old regime, college professors, intellectuals, and the Illuminati. Whether it be Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, the result is always the same. Don't think that the leftists in the Democratic party can't descend to this level of atrocity with enough time. Now they just take you out and shoot you instead of using a rope of guillotine.

| Reply
May 22, 2020 20:35:04   #
Wolfman888
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Yes, absolutely correct. The first people any totalitarian regime eliminates (this is the history of the twentieth century) are those who helped them get into power. These are the useful idiots who are dispensible. next come the judges, elected officials from the old regime, college professors, intellectuals, and the Illuminati. Whether it be Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, the result is always the same. Don't think that the leftists in the Democratic party can't descend to this level of atrocity with enough time. Now they just take you out and shoot you instead of using a rope of guillotine.
Yes, absolutely correct. The first people any tot... (show quote)


As opposed to a President who fires, dismisses, insults, or undermines anyone

he deems is a threat to his toxic narcissism.

If he is reelected we will truly be living in a totalitarian regime and you all will have helped.

BE PROUD !

| Reply
May 22, 2020 20:55:16   #
Seth
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Yes, absolutely correct. The first people any totalitarian regime eliminates (this is the history of the twentieth century) are those who helped them get into power. These are the useful idiots who are dispensible. next come the judges, elected officials from the old regime, college professors, intellectuals, and the Illuminati. Whether it be Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, the result is always the same. Don't think that the leftists in the Democratic party can't descend to this level of atrocity with enough time. Now they just take you out and shoot you instead of using a rope of guillotine.
Yes, absolutely correct. The first people any tot... (show quote)


What sort of astounds me is that given the freedom we are blessed with under the American system, under the U.S. Constitution and the opportunities this country provides to anyone who wishes to take advantage of them, there are so many adult aged spoiled brats who not only don't appreciate what America has to offer, but support those who wish to destroy it.

As you point out, these same useful idiots are the ones who would be the first to pay the price for their own treachery. The people calling the shots are using them as tools -- disposable tools at that -- and these lemmings are totally clueless, fools who simply won't learn from history until it's too late and they've become part of history; unfortunately for them, the dark side of history.

After having five consecutive globalists in the White House, it's extremely gratifying to at last have an America First president who values our Constitution and our sovereignty and believes that America should be #1.

| Reply
May 22, 2020 21:50:29   #
Rose42
 
Wolfman888 wrote:
As opposed to a President who fires, dismisses, insults, or undermines anyone

he deems is a threat to his toxic narcissism.

If he is reelected we will truly be living in a totalitarian regime and you all will have helped.

BE PROUD !


YOU be proud. Its almost like the democrats want him to win. And after THREE YEARS all the democrats could come up with is an old white guy who shows signs of the beginning of dementia. What a joke.

| Reply
May 22, 2020 22:07:27   #
Seth
 
Wolfman888 wrote:
As opposed to a President who fires, dismisses, insults, or undermines anyone

he deems is a threat to his toxic narcissism.

If he is reelected we will truly be living in a totalitarian regime and you all will have helped.

BE PROUD !


It's amusing that while you feature that Orwell quote in both the meme at the top of your posts and underneath them, the politicians described in the quote are the very Democrats you obviously vote for.

Technically, that makes you an accomplice to both the attempted socialist overthrow of America and the heavy handed corruption practiced by those same leftist politicians.

Now if that's not a real head scratcher, I don't know what is...

| Reply
May 23, 2020 01:22:36   #
Barracuda2020
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Seems a bit hypocritical, no?


I find in time what goes around comes around, one day it'll fall back onto Phillips. He could have baked the cake and simply told them to find their own statuette topping. Baking a cake for someone is not a moral or religious belief, and since when is a product attached to the seller in a personal belief after it's been sold, or visa versa. What happened, the baker got religious cooties from the buyers, I hope this still goes to another court, it's ridiculous and I can't believe they got away with it.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 01:38:13   #
Seth
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I find in time what goes around comes around, one day it'll fall back onto Phillips. He could have baked the cake and simply told them to find their own statuette topping. Baking a cake for someone is not a moral or religious belief, and since when is a product attached to the seller in a personal belief after it's been sold, or visa versa. What happened, the baker got religious cooties from the buyers, I hope this still goes to another court, it's ridiculous and I can't believe they got away with it.
I find in time what goes around comes around, one ... (show quote)


It's Phillips's business, not the general public's and not the government's. He pays for permits to run it and he pays all his overhead plus taxes on his profits. There is no obligation, legal or moral, for him to do any business he does not wish to do for any reason whatsoever.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that either government can force a someone in Phillips' situation to do business with someone if he is not comfortable with the nature of it or that they can punish him for not doing business in those circumstances, just as there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right not to be offended.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 01:52:49   #
Barracuda2020
 
Seth wrote:
It's Phillips's business, not the general public's and not the government's. He pays for permits to run it and he pays all his overhead plus taxes on his profits. There is no obligation, legal or moral, for him to do any business he does not wish to do for any reason whatsoever.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that either government can force a someone in Phillips' situation to do business with someone if he is not comfortable with the nature of it or that they can punish him for not doing business in those circumstances, just as there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right not to be offended.
It's Phillips's business, not the general public's... (show quote)


He serves the general public. He was prejudice, which was against a constitutional right, the fourteenth amendment. This religious clause is BS simply put, it opens the pandora's box to allow people to defy that right any time they choose for any reason they choose. It is clearly undermining our constitution, and the only reason you're all for it is that you are just as prejudice. It makes me feel that Christians should not be served under the atheist's right against religion... that work for ya?

| Reply
May 23, 2020 01:58:51   #
Barracuda2020
 
Seth wrote:
It's Phillips's business, not the general public's and not the government's. He pays for permits to run it and he pays all his overhead plus taxes on his profits. There is no obligation, legal or moral, for him to do any business he does not wish to do for any reason whatsoever.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that either government can force a someone in Phillips' situation to do business with someone if he is not comfortable with the nature of it or that they can punish him for not doing business in those circumstances, just as there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right not to be offended.
It's Phillips's business, not the general public's... (show quote)


How was "he partaking" in anything? Did they invite him to have an orgy with them? When something is sold it breaks all ties to the seller and what positions they use, I mean some are still illegal in some states.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 02:14:01   #
Seth
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
He serves the general public. He was prejudice, which was against a constitutional right, the fourteenth amendment. This religious clause is BS simply put, it opens the pandora's box to allow people to defy that right any time they choose for any reason they choose. It is clearly undermining our constitution, and the only reason you're all for it is that you are just as prejudice. It makes me feel that Christians should not be served under the atheist's right against religion... that work for ya?
He serves the general public. He was prejudice, wh... (show quote)


The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, but has no bearing whatsoever on the rights or lack thereof of a private businessman or a private consumer. It has no application in the Masterpiece Bakery incident.

If it did apply, it would do more to protect Phillips from being prosecuted by the state for following his religious convictions.

I understand that you folks who list to port have little or no use for religious beliefs because you don't want belief in G-d to come between a citizen and the omnipotence of the government, but I'm sorry to have to inform you that even after eight years of an Obama presidency, we are still the United States of America, not the late, unlamented Soviet Union, and the First Amendment applies more to the Masterpiece Bakery incident, meaning in Phillips' favor, than the 14th which, as I pointed out, has no relevance in that situation whatsoever.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 03:01:33   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Seth wrote:
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, but has no bearing whatsoever on the rights or lack thereof of a private businessman or a private consumer. It has no application in the Masterpiece Bakery incident.

If it did apply, it would do more to protect Phillips from being prosecuted by the state for following his religious convictions.

I understand that you folks who list to port have little or no use for religious beliefs because you don't want belief in G-d to come between a citizen and the omnipotence of the government, but I'm sorry to have to inform you that even after eight years of an Obama presidency, we are still the United States of America, not the late, unlamented Soviet Union, and the First Amendment applies more to the Masterpiece Bakery incident, meaning in Phillips' favor, than the 14th which, as I pointed out, has no relevance in that situation whatsoever.
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal p... (show quote)


I have to disagree. Maybe I am missing your point. Isn't the argument you are putting forth the same argument segregationist used to keep Blacks out of white businesses? Please explain how your point is different. This is not simply a "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policy.

This opens another can of worms. Are Homosexuals born this way or do they choose to be this way and therefore can change. A black person cannot change their ethnicity, so discrimination results when people are bigoted. On the other hand, refusing to provide a service that goes against one's religious beliefs may or may not be different. Slavery was justified by some in the 18th and 19th centuries through scripture.

I have a feeling that this topic just became a hot potato. Get ready for the onslaught.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 03:50:50   #
Seth
 
dtucker300 wrote:
I have to disagree. Maybe I am missing your point. Isn't the argument you are putting forth the same argument segregationist used to keep Blacks out of white businesses? Please explain how your point is different. This is not simply a "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policy.

This opens another can of worms. Are Homosexuals born this way or do they choose to be this way and therefore can change. A black person cannot change their ethnicity, so discrimination results when people are bigoted. On the other hand, refusing to provide a service that goes against one's religious beliefs may or may not be different. Slavery was justified by some in the 18th and 19th centuries through scripture.

I have a feeling that this topic just became a hot potato. Get ready for the onslaught.
I have to disagree. Maybe I am missing your point... (show quote)


Let me explain it another way.

Phillips did not and doubtless would not refuse service to somebody for being gay. That was not the issue. The issue was that Phillips, being a devout Christian who, as is his right as an American in America, adheres to his beliefs -- and the Bible definitely states that homosexuality is forbidden by G-d.

Not everyone believes that or has to believe it, but it is Phillips' right to do so.

Back to the gay guy; he enters the shop and orders a cake. Phillips would love to bake him a cake, that's what pays the bills, right? However, the customer then tells him it's a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.

According to his religious beliefs, Phillips can't bake the cake now that he knows it's for something Christianity doesn't condone. Had the customer simply said he wanted a wedding cake baked and not indicated it was for a same sex marriage, even knowing the guy was gay probably wouldn't have stopped him -- the customer could've been buying it for someone else.

So he wasn't refusing to bake a cake for the man on the grounds that he was gay, he just wasn't about to bake a cake knowing it was for something he, as a Christian, couldn't condone.

So at what point does one draw the line where someone else's religious beliefs are concerned? And at what point can the government, be it city, state or federal, tell a private citizen that he has to ignore the tenets of his religion to satisfy a request he considers sinful?

SCOTUS was right to rule in Masterpiece Bake Shop's favor, it's not like it's the only bakery in Lakewood, Colorado.

There are at least 18 bakeries in town, and at least ten will bake a custom wedding cake.

The only reason this is even an issue is because the gay dude and his fellow Democrats wanted to ruin Phillips for not dancing to their tune.

No, the day government can punish a citizen for not yielding his Christian beliefs for something like that will be the day America is no longer a free country.

| Reply
May 23, 2020 10:02:36   #
Barracuda2020
 
Seth wrote:
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, but has no bearing whatsoever on the rights or lack thereof of a private businessman or a private consumer. It has no application in the Masterpiece Bakery incident.

If it did apply, it would do more to protect Phillips from being prosecuted by the state for following his religious convictions.

I understand that you folks who list to port have little or no use for religious beliefs because you don't want belief in G-d to come between a citizen and the omnipotence of the government, but I'm sorry to have to inform you that even after eight years of an Obama presidency, we are still the United States of America, not the late, unlamented Soviet Union, and the First Amendment applies more to the Masterpiece Bakery incident, meaning in Phillips' favor, than the 14th which, as I pointed out, has no relevance in that situation whatsoever.
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal p... (show quote)


It certainly does, obviously, you don't understand the unprejudicial rights/amendments, and why they are being taken to court again. Now for further clarification we have the Equality Act, passed in May, 2019.


The Equality Act is a bill passed by the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 that would amend the Civil Rights Act to "prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)#Purpose_and_content

| Reply
May 23, 2020 11:27:31   #
bestpal38 Loc: Cedar City, Utah
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Smedley - I can appreciate that there are nuances between the baker and the mask-when-shopping issue.
But the sentiment of this meme still holds for liberals like myself.

As to your drug-using gay employees, I'm glad to hear you judged them on their illicit work activities and not their orientation! Drugs seem to be an inherent part of the restaurant business. Read the late Anthony Bourdain's book "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" (2000). It's a great read from a celebrity chef whose presence I really miss.

BTW - I originally studied Hotel and Restaurant Management at FSU, but changed my major. I love to cook and entertain friends, and someone always asks "Why don't you open a restaurant?" My reply is always "I'd rather stick needles in my eye."
Smedley - I can appreciate that there are nuances ... (show quote)


If I am made to wear a mask, I will shop elsewhere. My choice!! My face!!

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.