Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
That's a good point. They'd have to slaughter it themselves to make it halal though.
Regardless, the Hindu restaurant could not be compelled to provide a service they don't normally do.
This is distinctly different from a business refusing to provide a service that they do normally do to specific persons.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Still holds up.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
There's a important distinction between a business refusing to provide a service they don't provide to anyone (Hindus refusing to serve beef) and a business refusing to provide a routine service to specific persons (Xtian refusing to cater gay wedding).
There is a difference between serving someone at a restaurant and having your catering service's logo plastered all over an event that you personally have issues with, AND that your religion has issues with. You may not like it, but it IS their belief. And catering is typically a "by contract" service, is it not? So it would also be exempt.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
It is, I went to India and had a nice steak at a steak house.
Now is this the christian run buisness that put the L's information online and the christian hate mob harassed them for weeks? That's why they got sued and ended up getting out of the buisness. Yes people are free to practice their religion as hateful bigots, it is america after all, but do those beliefs need to be defended? oh heck no!
Your business doesn't go to heaven, so it shouldn't be able to refuse based on a religion that doesn't apply to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit:
This same topic has been talked about for years now on this forum, so I'm just going to drop it. My stance is well known on this, so no point getting worked up about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 00:05:27
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/14 02:07:50
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Well, to be fair, had he actually watched the award ceremony, he would have seen that Biden totally agreed with him. Too bad he couldn't be bothered to watch it. For once that soapbox emoticon gif wasn't used ironically, though the poster will never understand it because of preconceived perceptions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 02:33:15
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 02:35:47
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
Eeyore of a comment? That's quite something given your responses.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Cynicism is surrender and hate. Full stop. You might think it means the same as criticism, but you would be wrong. Cynicism is a form of easy nievete.
Cynicism is a tendency to distrust people's motives. It has nothing to do with surrender or hate or criticism or naiveté. Holy cow, people, buy a freaking dictionary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 02:43:59
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
Eeyore of a comment? That's quite something given your responses.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Cynicism is surrender and hate. Full stop. You might think it means the same as criticism, but you would be wrong. Cynicism is a form of easy nievete.
Cynicism is a tendency to distrust people's motives. It has nothing to do with surrender or hate or criticism or naiveté. Holy cow, people, buy a freaking dictionary.
Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 02:53:47
There is no such thing as healthy cynicism. That is criticism. Cynicism comes as an easy form of being ignorant about a given topic. Add humour and it is sarcasm. Ask a teen to opine about any gven topic that they don't understand yet hate. That is what it is.
Being critical is something different. It demands knowledge about the problem and allows for a possible solution. It is why in college I attempt to teach critical thinking, not cynical thinking.
It might seem like a pendantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one. We have lots of difficult problems in our society. Cynicism will not solve any of them. Criticism might, but it takes work.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/14 03:10:29
BigWaaagh wrote: Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
My comment was fairly tame compared to some of the stuff people have unloaded against Trump in this (and the previous) thread but nobody flipped out then, did they? So if seeing a soapbox icon causes you to start tossing molotov cocktails, expect to be called out on it.
As for defining cynicism, when people apply terms like broken, hate, surrender, and naiveté to the word, I really do think there is need for a dictionary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 03:06:18
BigWaaagh wrote: Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
My comment was fairly tame compared to some of the stuff people have unloaded against Trump in this (and the previous) thread but nobody flipped out then, did they? So if seeing a soapbox icon causes you to start tossing molotov cocktails, expect to be called out on it.
As for defining cynicism, when people apply terms like broken, hate, surrender, and naiveté to the word, I really do think there is need for a dictionary.
That would almost be an argument if it wasn't so wrong. Firstly, don't deflect to Trump comments, that alone is telling me you've got no defense for your position. Stay on topic and I don't care a bit if you use every Orkmoticon available, but when you just take a shotgun approach to commenting on, or insulting, something, i.e. turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into a "feth 'em all" diatribe, then there's going to be some questioning of the motive behind it.
As I stated, be cynical, fine. Unload that cynicism like a hand grenade, as you're want to do, then the validity of the post and, by extension, the poster becomes suspect. And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 03:24:33
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/14 03:47:52
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
So let me get this right, in one response you say, "You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President." and also say " My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it." The word salad and attempt at a train of thought is amazing.
Also, showing something relative to it's actual definition is hardly a "strawman". Maybe you're the one in need of a dictionary for that term.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 03:55:51
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?). As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/14 04:30:04
Gordon Shumway wrote: Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?).
You previously positioned yourself to be a proponent of critical thought and yet you open with base trolling. That's definitely bad form in a debate.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
Circular logic? As in "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."? I'm honestly not sure how that applies. I made a statement that I was cynical of motives, critical of how the of awarding this medal appears, and included a comparison as part of that criticism. Please graph the circle for me without editing what I wrote into your own version of what I wrote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/14 04:32:59
Gordon Shumway wrote: Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?).
You previously positioned yourself to be a proponent of critical thought and yet you open with base trolling. That's definitely bad form in a debate.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
Circular logic? As in "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."? I'm honestly not sure how that applies. I made a statement that I was cynical of motives, critical of how the of awarding this medal appears, and included a comparison as part of that criticism. Please graph the circle for me without editing what I wrote into your own version of what I wrote.
Base trolling? I thought I was the one being trolled with the whole "ahem" and monocle routine. I was just responding without attempting to hide behind sarcasm or snark at all. I wasn't attempting to troll, merely clearly point out my distain of your position. As to the circular logic, the above poster laid it out pretty clearly in words. You are smart enough not to need a graph. And at this point, let us be done with this conversation as we are well and truly off topic. If you want the last word, I'll let you have it, just PM it to me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/14 04:56:35
Gordon Shumway wrote: And at this point, let us be done with this conversation as we are well and truly off topic.
Agreed.
And in that vein, the Commanding General of the Washington D.C. National Guard will end his service in the middle of the inauguration according to the Washington Post.
I know Trump is removing all previous appointments (or more properly not extending them until he can fill the post) and Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz is disappointed he won't be able to finish the job as he won't have that job at 12:01 but could this have been avoided?
First, I think having posts vacate in the middle of the day is just plain silly. There's really no reason it couldn't have been done at midnight EST. On the other hand, I'm not seeing any deliberate insult either. I do see this as just one more example of shortsightedness on the part of Trump and his people and that's unfortunate.
I expect conspiracy theorists will claim that this is a slight on the part of Donald Trump and/or his staff while others will say it may just be an oversight. Personally, I didn't even know D.C. had a National Guard as it isn't a State. So, before the commentators and pundits tear into this and chum the waters, what do you guys think?
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
It is, I went to India and had a nice steak at a steak house.
Now is this the christian run buisness that put the L's information online and the christian hate mob harassed them for weeks? That's why they got sued and ended up getting out of the buisness. Yes people are free to practice their religion as hateful bigots, it is america after all, but do those beliefs need to be defended? oh heck no!
I believe the pizza parlor that was the source of the Indiana law is still open. Now the bakery in Iowa or wherever it was that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding? They got closed down by boycotting and harassment.
So, marijuana is bad, but alcohol/mental health issues/cigarettes totally okay? You have an interesting set of priorities.
So because bad thing was stupidly allowed in the past new stupid things should be allowed? Alas removing given rights is harder than not giving new right so they are not equal
That would be the in reference to the tweet in which Trump advertised a lobster restaurant in Maine by mistake right ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
