trump the traitor

The ridiculousness of a white guy telling a black guy they want to do away with Civil Rights and affirmative action because the black guy said a president shouldn’t be interfering with private companies. Ignoring the fact affirmative action is part of an act which is more about legislation.

Oh and a person who doesn’t know someone telling them they aren’t religious. Not knowing that black guy grew up in the church. Not just Sunday’s or holidays. Bible study on Weds, daily programs in the summer. But I don’t use my religion to try to make points or to defend my immoral actions.

Ok, I'm really curious about this. And yes, I know the legalities. But what I'm saying is --according to what you said in your post above - FREEDOM to do what YOU think is correct. So in this case - the baker is doing what HE thinks is correct according to his beliefs. He is excercising his freedom of religion right. We may not think it's right but he does - and he is expressing that right under the constitution which gives us freedom of religion. And in his religion he follows the the Bible -not man's law.

In either case it will be interesting to see when it goes to the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Freedom exists for one person only until it violates the freedom of another. You have the freedom to walk down the street wildly swinging your arms. However, if I get within arm's length of you my freedom to walk down the street without being hit outweighs your freedom to swing your arms.

When a person opens a business to the public, certain laws apply. What if the baker did not want to sell to blacks? Or Jews? Or women? There is a separation of church and state. I assume you've heard that before. Man's law comes before the teachings of the Bible. While Christianity is the primary religion in this country, it is not the only practiced religion. We can't have a law for each religion so laws are made with no religion in mind.

It will be interesting. The DOJ came down on the side of the baker. His cakes are a form of expression and he can't be compelled to use his talents for something he does not believe in. Now it's in the supreme courts lap.

When I did wedding planning I did 3 gay weddings. My weddings were over the top - 5 cakes,tons of flowers,ect - used alot of vendors and they were all happy to take my client's money. Never had a problem or an issue with my clients being gay. The vendors never brought politics or personal beliefs in our transactions. Nor did they display anything that was political in nature - they stuck to their business. And it worked out great.

I din't mention Trump but I don't think he's all that religious in the first place. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I cant find anywhere where the DOJ sided with the baker.

Here is an interesting article on why SCOTUS should rule against the baker. Certainly an opinion but a well thought out opinion.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/27...st-gay-couple/

. http://wapo.st/2vL5nb6 From the Washington Post.
That was an interesting article you posted.

. http://wapo.st/2vL5nb6 From the Washington Post.
That was an interesting article you posted. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

The Denver Post article is interesting as is the one you post. I’m glad the one you posted stated something that others aren’t. To just say the Justice Department is a little disingenuous. It’s Trump’s DOJ that has sided with the baker. Odds are that a Democratic DOJ wouldn’t. Just like Obama’s DOJ sided with people in Texas fighting voter ID laws that were deemed racially motivated and Trump’s DOJ didn’t support that.

In the end, I’m betting the SCOTUS sends the case back down to the lower court and avoid making a decision that would become precedent in cases that may be harsher.

Trump wanted to be an NFL team owner, but they thought he was a ‘scumbag huckster’.
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-nfl-f...n-670843?amp=1


Four star general: "I know something about the flag ... put me down with Kaepernick".
“As a 39-year military veteran, I think I know something about the flag, the anthem, patriotism, and I think I know why we fight,” he writes. “It’s not to allow the president to divide us by wrapping himself in the national banner. I never imagined myself saying this before Friday, but if now forced to choose in this dispute, put me down with Kaepernick.”
https://shareblue.com/four-star-gene...th-kaepernick/


Oath of enlistment-
"I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...."
There's nothing in there swearing loyalty to a flag.

Trump is a big mistake!! A lot of people that voted for him, are realizing that he is, one extremely big liar!!

. http://wapo.st/2vL5nb6 From the Washington Post.
That was an interesting article you posted. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Thanks for the link.

My personal opinion still is that if a person opens a place of business which is a public place of business, he/she does not have the right to pick and choose as to who they will and will not sell their product.

As you said, it will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on this issue.

The ridiculousness of a white guy telling a black guy they want to do away with Civil Rights and affirmative action because the black guy said a president shouldn’t be interfering with private companies. Ignoring the fact affirmative action is part of an act which is more about legislation.

Oh and a person who doesn’t know someone telling them they aren’t religious. Not knowing that black guy grew up in the church. Not just Sunday’s or holidays. Bible study on Weds, daily programs in the summer. But I don’t use my religion to try to make points or to defend my immoral actions. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Hey millsy, ya tawkin’ ‘bout me? Then speak directly to me like a man, dude!

You’re right, I don’t know anything about your religious upbringing. Just like you don’t know anything about my race or ethnicity. I can see you’re really struggling with this. Relax, it’s not that complicated. Either you believe “the executive branch shouldn’t interfere in the hiring/firing of private companies” - or you don’t. If you do, then logically as a matter of principle you have to oppose affirmative action. If you don’t, then you should be man enough to say you spoke too hastily and you wish to retract what you originally posted.

If you say you’re a religious person, I’ll take your word for it. I’ll even be a man and retract my earlier suggestion to the contrary. Now here’s a question for you, millsy. As a religious man and an empathetic person, do you think it’s ok for the federal government to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their sincerely held religious convictions? Surely you don’t think the good nuns are just using their religion insincerely as a pretext “to not do things”, do you?

Hey millsy, ya tawkin’ ‘bout me? Then speak directly to me like a man, dude!

You’re right, I don’t know anything about your religious upbringing. Just like you don’t know anything about my race or ethnicity. I can see you’re really struggling with this. Relax, it’s not that complicated. Either you believe “the executive branch shouldn’t interfere in the hiring/firing of private companies” - or you don’t. If you do, then logically as a matter of principle you have to oppose affirmative action. If you don’t, then you should be man enough to say you spoke too hastily and you wish to retract what you originally posted.

If you say you’re a religious person, I’ll take your word for it. I’ll even be a man and retract my earlier suggestion to the contrary. Now here’s a question for you, millsy. As a religious man and an empathetic person, do you think it’s ok for the federal government to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their sincerely held religious convictions? Surely you don’t think the good nuns are just using their religion insincerely as a pretext “to not do things”, do you? Originally Posted by lustylad

Hahaha it has nothing to do with being a man. I have no issue speaking directly to you. The reason I never do is because you aren't open to dialogue and you try to tell people they are wrong and should admit, but never do that yourself. Kinda how you are telling me I should admit I spoke hastily when I didn't. As I've said, affirmative action isn't about the executive branch. That ship sailed when it was inserted in the Civil Rights Act. Which is a law and more about legislation. So stop telling me that I have a view that would mean I'm against affirmative action. There is a difference between companies having to follow something established in an act passed by Congress and a president telling a company they need to fire people for doing something they legally have the right to do and isn't against any company guidelines.

But if we are talking about speaking hastily, you spoke hastily about federal meaning executive but didn't retract that or admit you were wrong. Funny you're trying to tell me to do something you can't do.

I don't know your race or ethnicity, but I'm 99.99% you aren't black. And I'm pretty sure you are of some European descent. Don't try to compare the two. I don't speak about religion but I never make any attacks on religious freedoms, etc. You have said things on here that I, as an African American, can parse through and tell that you aren't African American.

As for you trying to get me to agree with you to attack Obama. I don't let my religion sway me with the decisions of government. All men are imperfect and will fall short of the glory of God. So why try to use it against them? Trump isn't a person people should be supporting if we are trying to live up to the teachings of the Bible but I don't hold the against him. I criticize him on his political failures not his religious ones.

Wait - hold up a minute - If I, as a white woman, would say that I could tell by your posts that you are African American? Is that raciest? I ask this because in the O.J. Simpson case when someone said they can tell he's black over the phone- the defense said that was raciest - but than they laughed after about how stupid white people can be.
Just need to be clear here.

Hahaha it has nothing to do with being a man. I have no issue speaking directly to you. The reason I never do is because you aren't open to dialogue and you try to tell people they are wrong and should admit, but never do that yourself. Kinda how you are telling me I should admit I spoke hastily when I didn't. As I've said, affirmative action isn't about the executive branch. That ship sailed when it was inserted in the Civil Rights Act. Which is a law and more about legislation. So stop telling me that I have a view that would mean I'm against affirmative action. There is a difference between companies having to follow something established in an act passed by Congress and a president telling a company they need to fire people for doing something they legally have the right to do and isn't against any company guidelines.

But if we are talking about speaking hastily, you spoke hastily about federal meaning executive but didn't retract that or admit you were wrong. Funny you're trying to tell me to do something you can't do.

I don't know your race or ethnicity, but I'm 99.99% you aren't black. And I'm pretty sure you are of some European descent. Don't try to compare the two. I don't speak about religion but I never make any attacks on religious freedoms, etc. You have said things on here that I, as an African American, can parse through and tell that you aren't African American.

As for you trying to get me to agree with you to attack Obama. I don't let my religion sway me with the decisions of government. All men are imperfect and will fall short of the glory of God. So why try to use it against them? Trump isn't a person people should be supporting if we are trying to live up to the teachings of the Bible but I don't hold the against him. I criticize him on his political failures not his religious ones. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Wait - hold up a minute - If I, as a white woman, would say that I could tell by your posts that you are African American? Is that raciest? I ask this because in the O.J. Simpson case when someone said they can tell he's black over the phone- the defense said that was raciest - but than they laughed after about how stupid white people can be.
Just need to be clear here. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

No it would not be racist, especially since I’ve posted that I am.

Hahaha it has nothing to do with being a man. My bad! So you’re a woman? I have no issue speaking directly to you. Then stop using the third person. The reason I never do is because you aren't open to dialogue and you try to tell people they are wrong and should admit, but never do that yourself. So you have a hard time dealing directly with anyone who has the effrontery to tell you when and why you’re wrong? Got it!

Kinda how you are telling me I should admit I spoke hastily when I didn't. (This should be good...) As I've said, affirmative action isn't about the executive branch. That ship sailed when it was inserted in the Civil Rights Act. Which is a law and more about legislation. So stop telling me that I have a view that would mean I'm against affirmative action. Then I guess we don’t need the EEOC or the Dept. of Labor or the DOJ or the National Labor Relations Board or the host of other EXECUTIVE BRANCH agencies to continue to hold hearings, issue rulings, levy fines and/or pursue lawsuits on affirmative action. Should we abolish them or restrict their authority? I mean, you did say “the executive branch shouldn’t interfere in the hiring/firing of private companies”, didn’t you? I keep quoting you verbatim.

There is a difference between companies having to follow something established in an act passed by Congress and a president telling a company they need to fire people for doing something they legally have the right to do and isn't against any company guidelines. Then why do you conflate the two? Do you want the executive branch to be allowed to interfere or not? (By the way, it is against the NFL rule book not to stand respectfully during the national anthem.)

But if we are talking about speaking hastily, you spoke hastily about federal meaning executive but didn't retract that or admit you were wrong. Funny you're trying to tell me to do something you can't do. Wrong. I specifically restated myself in post #997. Did you forget? I said “with a few minor exceptions, nearly all federal agencies are part of the executive branch”. Meanwhile, you still haven’t restated your belief that the executive branch shouldn’t get involved in the hiring/firing of private businesses.

I don't know your race or ethnicity, but I'm 99.99% (???) you aren't black. And I'm pretty sure you are of some European descent. Don't try to compare the two. So you want to reserve the right to make assumptions about me, but complain if I do the same about you? Doesn’t work that way, millsy. I don't speak about religion but I never make any attacks on religious freedoms, etc. Yet you can't or won't defend those freedoms for the Little Sisters of the Poor when they are under attack? You have said things on here that I, as an African American, can parse through and tell that you aren't African American. Bullshit. You just want to cram every black and minority person into your libtard pigeonhole. You would have pegged Shelby Steele as white if he hadn’t told you otherwise.

As for you trying to get me to agree with you to attack Obama. Straw man. I didn’t ask you to attack Obama. I don't let my religion sway me with the decisions of government. What does that mean? You don’t care if the government infringes on your neighbor's religious freedoms and beliefs? Or yours? All men are imperfect and will fall short of the glory of God. So why try to use it against them? Now what are you talking about? Try to stay on point. Trump isn't a person people should be supporting if we are trying to live up to the teachings of the Bible but I don't hold the (sic) against him. I criticize him on his political failures not his religious ones. My question wasn't about Trump. Or Obama. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Once again, you can’t or won't answer a simple question. Why do you make it so hard? Just say yes or no. Don't be so wishy-washy. Take a side and defend it. Here is the question again:

As a religious man and an empathetic person, do you think it’s ok for the federal government to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their sincerely held religious convictions? Originally Posted by lustylad

Once again, you can’t or won't answer a simple question. Why do you make it so hard? Just say yes or no. Don't be so wishy-washy. Take a side and defend it. Here is the question again: Originally Posted by lustylad

"Restating" isn't admitting you were wrong. It's trying to yeah but your way out of saying something that was easily proven false.

Also asking me about what I said about falling short of grace of God makes me think you may not read the Bible. So why are you trying to defend something it seems you aren't in knowledgeable on?

So how about this, I will answer you stupid question when you admit that you aren't black. So it can be known and you can stop with the nonsense. Saying things like I want to cram African Americans into anything. Or that I want to end affirmative action. Guess what, African Americans voted overwhelmingly against Trump. It's not cramming them into anything. It's a fact he isn't liked or respected in the community.

This is why I don't respond to you. It has nothing to do with you thinking you are telling people when they are wrong. It's you thinking you are proving people wrong and then when someone shows you how you fucked up you try to dance around it. Why don't you man up and admit you said something wrong and something stupid, instead of saying you "restated" it. Do that and maybe I will answer your question and respond. If you can't do that, I will go back to ignoring your one sided rants.

I'll answer Lusty's question - no-I don't think it's ok for the federal government to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. That's over reaching. The government cannot force the Little Sister's of the Poor and other challengers to choose between violating their conscience as the government demands or face crippling fines and penalties. This case highlighted that the government could have accommodated the Little Sisters of the Poor all along but choose not to. These are nuns - and having been raised Catholic - that's the one thing they would never abide by. And that belief goes back decades - it didn't come about over night.