More hatred of America and our President. Nothing to see or read here. Move on to more interesting postings and logical thought.

Oh, come on wolf puppy, you know you have him beat.

I looked at the stupid pic and then I looked back to see who posted. The usual. Nothing to see here but d********g hatred. Don't bother responding.

Very interesting. Some really crazy things with Government procurement

And sometimes the Government has some very strict regulations and requirements that don't make sense. This reminded me of a story from my Fathers metal fabricating plant some time probably in the sixties. They had the blue prints for this box shaped item with extremely exact measurements and extremely tight tolerances. The man designing the process to manufacture this box shaped item was getting very frustrated after dealing with those tight tolerances and finally my father called the Government to find out why the tight tolerances and if they all needed to be that tight. Just what was this box being used for that it required such tight tolerances. A WASTE BASKET. My Father had a hard time getting that man to not quit over this government stupidity. Tolerances were loosened.

We're in total agreement

It hasn't reached maturity yet.

You make a lot of good points, but I still think that there needs to be two countries, Palestine and Israel as I have previously expressed. What is you solution? Slowly chewing up the West Bank and trapping even the nice Palestinians in ghettos. Just like you praise President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as the Israel capital, there must be movement towards peace and resolution. Status quo stinks and just enrages more and more Palestinians to seek to destroy Israel. Something needs to be done and I offered a possible solution. Many Muslims live within Israel and live peacefully as Israeli citizens. Others could live in the West Bank as Palestine and in peace. What is your solution?

And as for this worn out old phrase, "The rights of Israel to Jerusalem could never be denied. Jerusalem, and the whole Middle East belong to the Jewish people since 4000 years ago." Two thousand years ago it was the old city, not the ever expanding border of Jerusalem. So, they have no real claim beyond that and they haven't lived there in great numbers for 2000 years. That case is a long wasted argument.

Funny that a lot of them were going to raise stock payouts. They are owned by millions of 401 K plans and pension funds. Hmmm!!!

Yeah, but it is nine years since the last one promised, and seventeen years since the one before that.

Just change the business plan. We sell what is in stock to anyone. We occasionally make cakes for special occasions if we personally feel like doing that this week.

And why would investing money give you rights over your customers? >>> Because they did the work and invested the money and created a business to their liking, hoping it would succeed with customers and eventually make them a profit. It is their business and risk to create the business of their choice.

Where in the constitution does it say that the rights of a businessperson are more important than the rights of the individual. >>> Where in the constitution does it say that the rights of one individual are more important than the rights of the other individual in a business t***saction.

Why would the act of investing give you rights that you otherwise wouldn't have? >>> But they have that right. The right to do business with others, and to take the risks of business with others, and to engage in business with other to a mutual advantage. There was no mutual advantage. The homosexuals were asking in addition to buying a cake from the individual, that he perform in their wedding ceremony against his wishes with his persona expertise.

Your argument is that they only partially discriminate not totally discriminate. >>> To discriminate is not necessarily a bad thing like you want to make it. We discriminate all day long in our friendships, choice of clothes, what to eat. It is part of free choice. Your problem is that you would demand to take away the right of people to choose, to discriminate, to prefer. These people did not discriminate in any outlandish manner. They were quite specific. I'll serve you a cake. I won't allow you, to force me to use my personal expertise, to make a special cake for you, and thereby participate in something that is against my religious beliefs. Must be really sick to be you and want to force that on others.

To discriminate is not necessarily a bad thing like you want to make itWhere in the constitution does it say that if we partially discriminate it's okay but if we fully discriminate then it's not? What you seem to be missing is that it's that partial service that was desired and because of that there was no difference between a partial discrimination and a complete one.

Oh I completely understand. If I have money to invest in a business my rights supersede yours and if I partially discriminate against you it's okay. Did I get your drift? >>> Within that business, yes.

Why would it matter, if it applies to one then it applies to all. >>> There has been a series of cases, all involving Christians. No were taken out against Muslims, Israelis, Hindus, etc. It was a Christian attack from the beginning by a minority who wisnes to force their a******l behavior and the acceptance of it onto others.

Testing by whom, Rush Limbaugh? >>> What the hell does your obsession with Rush Limbaugh have to do with this. This is a Religious belief of various individuals

A Muslim or Jewish bakery is welcome to refuse and welcome to be sued in the same way. >>> They have. they haven't been.

And if the bakers were decent people why would they have to? >>> They were decent people and that is the basis of their refusal. It was against their decent religious beliefs.

If the baker didn't make wedding cakes you would have a point. But when a baker makes wedding cakes--there is no special order being made. >>> The wedding cake IS a special order. They were offered the stock wedding cakes on the shelves

Because when they opened their doors it was to make their artistic talents to the population at large. If it went against their religious beliefs they should have restricted it only to their church. >>> Their baking was for various cakes and other baked goods. Their artistic talents were for special things, and yes, weddings that they believe were in God's plan as told in the Bible and as they believed.

I forgot that you conservatives see everything as a slippery slope. If this didn't occur with straight couples why would you assume it is going to occur with gay ones? >>> Because they never have enough. There were bakeries all over town. They could have just moved on. Decent people would have.

why would a business owners right supersede that of their customers-- >>> Because they are the ones who invested time and labor and money to make their business what it is and what they wanted it to be about. They did not invest in that business to provide for you what you wanted it to be.

be straight and I'll serve you else you can take a flying leap? Hardly seems fair wouldn't you say... That was never the issue. They were happy to serve them cakes. They were not happy to make them something special that goes against their rightful personal beliefs. Their basic business was available. Their personal services were not.

If I rent a motel room, I have a right to that room. I do not have a right to demand that the beautiful owner join me in that room, with her special expertise, for my personal needs.

So I'm assuming they sued the Muslim bakers correct. >>> No, it was just a test like the homosexual couple. The difference is that the intolerant homosexual couple used this case to sue and make a ton of money trying to prove an invalid point, and supported by the misguided authorities in Colorado.

So how did those lawsuits turn out. There weren't any. They weren't a$$holes.


I take it you listen to Rush Limbaugh. You are aware he never was too interested in the t***h...>>> Listening to him right now. He is more into the t***h then I've ever seen out of you and your sick biased left wing agenda.

So Kennedy see's tolerance as necessary in a free society and that means he's going to side with a baker who has no tolerance for the rights of others? >>> Wrong again. Tolerance is necessary in a free society, but not necessary in every situation if the alternative is more of an offense. The baker in question was very tolerant. He offered then any cake in the store. He refused to bake a special one for them because of his religious beliefs. The homosexuals were the intolerant ones here demanding his personal services and artistic creativity and if you are so incapable of seeing that, I feel sorry for you having to live with the burden of being so damn intolerant of the rights of others. But you are a l*****t.