RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi?

RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 1:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise except if we want to intrude upon your religious freedom to balance other important societal goals thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. sure enough! theres the provision, I dont know how I could have missed that all these years! [8D] The judge is right! Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise and doesn't need to when I am free to discriminate against anybody I want based my free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In fact I am free according to my free exercise thereof to discriminate against blacks, or those that don't stone their wife to death when I find out she wasn't a virgin when we married, or whoever doesn't stone a homosexual and in fact his family too. Hell, in the free exercise of my religion, I get to do just about any damn thing I want, anytime I want. Congress it says, shall pass no law now.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 2:37:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji For years MLB used Mississippi Bay mud to rub the gloss from all the baseballs. I think they now use mud they mine in Georgia. I'd have to Google it. Maybe someone here will do that. I'm almost positive it now comes from Vincetown or Vineland (something with a "V"), New Jersey, now. Michael ETA: Palmyra isn't too far from Vincetown

thishereboi -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 4:16:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Tell me how is selling insulin to a diabetic against a religion?... For that matter how is selling bread to a hungry man against religion? Will your gayness come off on the money you give them? Good grief, give it a rest. No way and no how are Christians going to deny health care or food to anyone, especially to children. It's not the same thing as a stupid cake maker, a caterer or photographer not wanting to provide service for a same sex wedding. While that is certainly true, they are trying to get the country to believe that all republicans are homophobic and should never hold office. How can you build that kind of hate with only a cake. No, you have to make it far worse than it is to generate the kind of hate the left seems to be going for these days and they have made it clear they don't mind lying to get their point across. And in the mean time we should boycott all business in the states because although it was the law makers who passed the bills they somehow think it's the average citizen who should pay for it. And if they continue to scream boycott every time someone passes a bill they don't like, they can scare people into voting for who they want in the next election.

mnottertail -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 4:40:53 AM)
well, list politicians of the nutsucker persuasion that are not homophobic and are calling shame on this horseshit. We'll wait.

PeonForHer -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 5:27:37 AM)
quote: While that is certainly true, they are trying to get the country to believe that all republicans are homophobic and should never hold office. How can you build that kind of hate with only a cake. No, you have to make it far worse than it is to generate the kind of hate the left seems to be going for these days and they have made it clear they don't mind lying to get their point across. And in the mean time we should boycott all business in the states because although it was the law makers who passed the bills they somehow think it's the average citizen who should pay for it. And if they continue to scream boycott every time someone passes a bill they don't like, they can scare people into voting for who they want in the next election. God, THB. The first time you put in an appearance on this thread and it's to defend republicans, not other LGBT people? I suppose I should be used to your MO by now, but sometimes you still astonish me.

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 6:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The nutsuckers are forcing you to live under Sharia law!!!!!!!!! Once again, I'm going to ask you to define this term you're so fond of..."nutsucker". Hawk

Awareness -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 6:46:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I always find it amusing when conservatives push bills like this into law. They are often the same types whom bitch about wasteful spending of the tax payers dollar. Yet, when they do it, its all 'justified'. This law will be challenged day one of its existence. It'll be found unconstitutional in the courts. Weeks later, these same idiot people will past another law. For them, they want the rest of the world to live in the 1950's. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world has past them by.... Are we expecting anything really useful out of a state that is ranked #51 out of 51 states/commonwealths/districts for education? An have hovered within six places of that #51 for over two decades? Hey, the military has to have its source of cheap, expendable soldiers from somewhere.... The problem is that it should never have come to this. Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. We're not talking about access to government or essential services. The imposition upon a private business by the government of an obligation to service is - quite frankly - unconstitutional. A bakery shouldn't be obliged to serve everyone. That's a business decision and they're fully entitled to make their own decisions around business conduct. The overreach by the regressive left is of great concern, mirroring - as it does - the restrictions of freedoms which pretty much every socialist or communist government imposes upon its citizens.

thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:03:04 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness The problem is that it should never have come to this. Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. We're not talking about access to government or essential services. The imposition upon a private business by the government of an obligation to service is - quite frankly - unconstitutional. A bakery shouldn't be obliged to serve everyone. That's a business decision and they're fully entitled to make their own decisions around business conduct. The overreach by the regressive left is of great concern, mirroring - as it does - the restrictions of freedoms which pretty much every socialist or communist government imposes upon its citizens. Plessy v. ferguson was overturned sometime ago. It was on the news and in all the papers. "The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law." https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

DaddySatyr -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:03:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 smiles...that very topic! Hippocratic vs. Judeo-Christian Medical Ethics I must admit that I knew, when I wrote that, that the original oath had a preclusion against abortive drugs (not in that wording), but that preclusion is not in the most modern version. It wasn't exactly a "gotcha", but I was looking to show that the medical practice (ethics) has little tolerance for religion (as far as I've been able to figure out). let me rephrase: From what I can tell, it is very difficult to be a Christian *and* a medical practitioner, these days. Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:04:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The nutsuckers are forcing you to live under Sharia law!!!!!!!!! Once again, I'm going to ask you to define this term you're so fond of..."nutsucker". Hawk Your google broke?

Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:13:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: joether I always find it amusing when conservatives push bills like this into law. They are often the same types whom bitch about wasteful spending of the tax payers dollar. Yet, when they do it, its all 'justified'. This law will be challenged day one of its existence. It'll be found unconstitutional in the courts. Weeks later, these same idiot people will past another law. For them, they want the rest of the world to live in the 1950's. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world has past them by.... Are we expecting anything really useful out of a state that is ranked #51 out of 51 states/commonwealths/districts for education? An have hovered within six places of that #51 for over two decades? Hey, the military has to have its source of cheap, expendable soldiers from somewhere.... The problem is that it should never have come to this. Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. We're not talking about access to government or essential services. The imposition upon a private business by the government of an obligation to service is - quite frankly - unconstitutional. A bakery shouldn't be obliged to serve everyone. That's a business decision and they're fully entitled to make their own decisions around business conduct. The overreach by the regressive left is of great concern, mirroring - as it does - the restrictions of freedoms which pretty much every socialist or communist government imposes upon its citizens. no its not a business decision. Its a religious decision when someone refuses on the basis of their religion to support someone, condone or become an accessory to someone elses religion. That is the purpose of the 1st amendment, to explicitly express our reserved religious rights in no uncertain terms. What our illustrious crookocratic gubblemint has done is overlaid their COMMERCIAL law and as usual they force everyone to conform basically by lying that the democracy over rules your individual reserved rights. The democracy cant 'legitimately' over rule your RESERVED RIGHTS as reserved rights are NOT 'UNDER' the united states constitution but set apart from it as I have explained numerous times. That does not stop corporate controlled judges from destroying its meaning or the crookocracy from stomping on your rights at every turn. The only place the gubmint has bonafide true jurisdiction 'over' the people is in the commercial venue, all else is reserved to we the individuals who supposedly vote on those matters based upon our local community needs with regard to the public venue or exercize our religion withing a private venue. no one nor the gubblemint has the legitimate authority or right to force anyone to conform to anyones (or LACK of), religion. We all voted on that right? We never ceded our rights to the gubblemint.

Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise except if we want to intrude upon your religious freedom to balance other important societal goals thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. sure enough! theres the provision, I dont know how I could have missed that all these years! [8D] The judge is right! Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise and doesn't need to when I am free to discriminate against anybody I want based my free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In fact I am free according to my free exercise thereof to discriminate against blacks, or those that don't stone their wife to death when I find out she wasn't a virgin when we married, or whoever doesn't stone a homosexual and in fact his family too. Hell, in the free exercise of my religion, I get to do just about any damn thing I want, anytime I want. Congress it says, shall pass no law now. Discrimnation is one of those catch all terms our crookocratic gubmint likes to use now days, like terrorism which they spent years trying to define since all the laws already exist under different non catch all terms. quote: Public accommodations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law,[3] but not religious organizations.[4][5] Various states in the United States, in a number of non-uniform laws, provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation. Federal law Within the United States, federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 State laws Many states and their subdivisions prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title II).[6][7] As of 2015, forty-five of the fifty US states have an anti-discrimination public accommodation law for nondisabled individuals.[8] These laws all protect against discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity and religion.[8] Nineteen states prohibit discrimination in public accommodation based upon age.[8] They were doing ok until they threw in religion since religion is a reserved right, yes you have the right to discriminate against anything and everything based upon your religion. Now I suppose if you could come up with some elemental moral reason to discrimnate against a color or a race then it would fit the lock and turn the key, however I have difficulty imagining what moral reasoning one could use. Those that did not stone their wives would be practicing their own religion and you have no jurisdiction over their actions what so ever and certainly cant force them to stone their wives because your religion might demand that you stone yours. "Hell, in the free exercise of my religion, I get to do just about any damn thing I want, anytime I want" Nothing could be further from correct, in fact it stops you from doing damn near everything but your personal religion and stops the crookocracy from becoming the religion it has by forcing itself upon people through its commercial venue. taking note that private 'clubs' are exempt. See they exempt themselves but individuals are the slaves in a crookocratic system of gubmint. Its a big club and you aint in it. That said if a gay comes into abc's store and wants a birthday cake NOT A PROBLEM, if they want a gay styled birthday or wedding cake or a swastika cake with adolf on it BIG PROBLEM they just crossed the line into forcing abc to not only accomodate them commercially for a 'non-necessity' but accomodate or become an accessory to THEIR religion which abc is totally against and in violation of the expressed rights stipulated in the constitution and the gubmint is not exempt. The gubblemint as it stands today has long established itself as a religion forcing people to follow its religion.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 7:46:13 AM)
staggers in Sipping his afternoon sipping Chardonnay Divine Conspiracy life of brian - clip - the stoning scene real0ne That does not stop corporate controlled judges from destroying its meaning or the crookocracy from stomping on your rights at every turn. ..fair point Does freedom actually exist, and in what manner would be a better question Buckrodgers your constitution, not even remnants remain only warped fragments

Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 8:03:07 AM)
instead of your comedy act why dont you try to understand what I actually said instead? [8\|]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 8:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance My thoughts on backwoods Mississippi? The hunting was good, the countryside beautiful and I'd like to go back to dig up some natural clay for a project I've had in mind. As for the Bill, I've read of similar bills elsewhere. If Kay and I ever decided to get married, we wouldn't want to put someone in the position of compromising their religious beliefs so we'd go to a business not conflicted in such a manner. Nor would we expect a pastor with strong convictions against same sex marriages to marry us. We would demand, however, that any governmental office that provides services to the public not discriminate against us. Private business, is a trickier matter. I see both sides of the argument and I don't know which is right. That is fine... but what if you lived in backwoods Missouri with only one grocery store... pharmacy …and car repair…and you were gay. The proposed law in Missouri does not limit refusal of services to just bakers. Is it Christian to kill you because you are denied medical care or medicine? Make you go hungry because you cannot buy food… isolate you because you cannot get your vehicle repaired… Just think of any necessary service you may need and the providers have a right to deny you because… you are different than they. And believe me the holier than thou assholes will drive you from their cities if given the chance. Because you are evil and will turn their children to sucking cock or eating pussy. We all know it is a choice and contagious... even though that makes no sense... but God says so. Butch You bring up some very valid points. I don't have any answers. Greater minds than mine debate these issues. I respect an individual's right to be true to their religious values, just as I expect my right to my pursuit of happiness to be respected. I accept that some religious beliefs aren't compatible with my choices. I prefer to err on the side that causes no harm and exhibits the greatest kindness. I just can't say I know what side that is, except to say I was raised in the deep south by strict Southern Baptist family and chose to move 1200+ miles away to chase my bliss. CHOOSING to move from somewhere where you don't got in rather than bend everybody to YOUR will? Shocking. ;-)

CreativeDominant -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 8:49:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You see its not about you not wanting someone to go against their religious values... By all means shop where people accept you... but if you allow a baker to not bake a cake how can you deny a restaurant owner the right to deny you food... just as they did blacks... How can you deny a doctor the right not to treat your children when they are sick? These types of laws are wrong and not Christian values and are only designed to discriminate. Butch Because cake...unlike food...is not necessary to maintain life. I don't know about Mississippi but in the state I practice in, the Board of Ethics makes it pretty clear to ANY healthcare provider that services will not be denied to anyone because of race, creed, color, religion, sexuality, etc. in short----no one

PeonForHer -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:39:11 AM)
quote: The overreach by the regressive left is of great concern, mirroring - as it does - the restrictions of freedoms which pretty much every socialist or communist government imposes upon its citizens. Not really the 'regressive left' - unless you want to include Antonin Scalia in that 'group': ".... None other than the late Antonin Scalia put his finger on the problem. To make an individual’s obedience to the law “contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs” amounts to “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’” he said. It “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense." Scalia made these comments in his 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the majority ruled that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a pair of individuals who violated a state ban on the use of peyote, even though their use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. It was the overreaction to that verdict—on both the left and the right—that produced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Though intended only to ensure that laws did not needlessly burden the religious liberty of individuals, the RFRA sparked a wave of unintended consequences. It effectively planted the demon seeds of the current crop of “religious liberty” bills. Employment Division, as it happened, involved a religion—that practiced by the Native American Church—with which Scalia likely did not identify. Which brings up a crucial point about the Mississippi law and its numerous cousins. These “religious liberty” bills are really intended only for a particular variety of religion. Indeed, HB 1523 protects you only if your religion involves a specific set of beliefs—such as the religious belief that “man” and “woman” “refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex,” and that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” marriage. To speak frankly, the law was designed to advance the claims of conservative Christians, and it would never have become law otherwise. If you think that every religion will find as much liberty in the laws of Mississippi, then I have a Satanic temple to sell you. " http://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 10:47:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The nutsuckers are forcing you to live under Sharia law!!!!!!!!! Once again, I'm going to ask you to define this term you're so fond of..."nutsucker". Hawk Nighthawk, it's a little boy snickering with his friends back in the corner of the room. The leftists hate Tea Party people more than they just generally hate. Tea Party people ==> to Tea Bagger, which is a gay term for licking your partners scrotum. Tea Bagger ==> to nut sucker. He's just a giggly little boy with his joke and infantile obsessions that fill him with hate because he can't be part of the real world.

Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 11:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji For years MLB used Mississippi Bay mud to rub the gloss from all the baseballs. I think they now use mud they mine in Georgia. I'd have to Google it. Maybe someone here will do that. I'm almost positive it now comes from Vincetown or Vineland (something with a "V"), New Jersey, now. Michael ETA: Palmyra isn't too far from Vincetown This says the exact spot is still a secret. http://baseballrubbingmud.com

Awareness -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/9/2016 11:13:50 AM)
Peon the problem with that it that I did not once mention religion as the justification for their right to deny service. There is no doubt that religion is most likely the essential driver behind the discomfort of the bakery persecuted for not baking a pair of gay guys a cake. However my argument doesn't touch on that at all. As far as I'm concerned, it's a private business decision. There is no provision of essential services, therefore the decision not to engage with a particular customer is entirely within the rights of the business owners to make. This is persecution - pure and simple - by those elements of the regressive left who hate Christianity and Western democracy in general. Islam bakeries are no more willing to cater to same-sex couples than Christian ones, but Muslims are the very group which the regressive left panders to and acts as an apologist for, which is why you won't see gay couples suing Islamic bakeries for exactly the same stance. The point is, businesses have a right to refuse service for all sorts of reasons - bartenders can refuse to serve drunkards, restaurants can refuse service to inappropriately dressed individuals, but to assert that a fucking bakery is breaching someone's constitutional rights by not catering to their same-sex wedding is a bunch of fucking horseshit. Go to another bakery - there's plenty around. It always was an appalling overreach and it was INEVITABLE that the religious right would react to this imposition on their basic freedoms. Not liking gay people is entirely their right and forcing people with religious convictions - or even just plain discomfort - to engage with gay people is nothing more than a petty little scheme of revenge and spite.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625