(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.
Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

(06-24-2018 01:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I would rather not be discriminated against. For small minorities, discrimination frequently means a loss of service at the same price and in some cases, it means no service at all.

There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

How would a gas station know you’re gay?

(06-24-2018 01:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Where was your faux OUTRAGE!!! when zerO pursued the exact same policy?

You do know those pictures were from 14, right?

(06-24-2018 01:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 01:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I would rather not be discriminated against. For small minorities, discrimination frequently means a loss of service at the same price and in some cases, it means no service at all.

There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

How would a gas station know you’re gay?

(06-24-2018 01:57 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

Just like you supported the DHS Secretary being able to eat her dinner in public without a threatening group cussing and yelling at her.

Wait, you thought that was just fine.

You're like the frat kid who got badly hazed as a Freshman who is the worst at harrassing the new kids when he is a Senior..

Tom lost all credibility here after he refused to condemn Joy Reid for her homophobic rants. He is just another lib screaming without any real character to back up that screaming now. He had his chance to stand on all of his previous posts and failed miserably.

(06-24-2018 02:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

(06-26-2018 05:29 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.

Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

It did not so rule. It ruled that the requested decoration -- celebrating a gay marriage -- was a form of expression, and that the First Amendment bars gov't from compelling citizens to speak against their beliefs.

The baker was perfectly willing to sell these litigious customers a cake. He was unwilling to be forced to celebrate something that, in his belief system, is a sin. [For the record, I'd have happily decorated the cake.]

The disgraceful owner of the Red Hen was not being forced to sing the praises of president Trump. She was only being asked to serve a willing customer -- one who had done her no harm other than to think differently than she.

And the restaurant owner is not now facing fines or closure from the gov't.

Xcentricty should not equate to stupidity. Do better.

(06-26-2018 07:27 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 05:29 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.

Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

It did not so rule. It ruled that the requested decoration -- celebrating a gay marriage -- was a form of expression, and that the First Amendment bars gov't from compelling citizens to speak against their beliefs.

The baker was perfectly willing to sell these litigious customers a cake. He was unwilling to be forced to celebrate something that, in his belief system, is a sin. [For the record, I'd have happily decorated the cake.]

The disgraceful owner of the Red Hen was not being forced to sing the praises of president Trump. She was only being asked to serve a willing customer -- one who had done her no harm other than to think differently than she.

And the restaurant owner is not now facing fines or closure from the gov't.

Xcentricty should not equate to stupidity. Do better.

Ouch.

(06-26-2018 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.
Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

Did not.

(06-26-2018 01:04 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.
Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

Did not.

Then please explain their decision...

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

(06-26-2018 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 01:04 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 06:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Why dont you try to actually read what the ruling was instead of letting someone else tell you. Tell you incorrectly at that.
Think for yourself and if you are, then stop being a f'ing idiot.

Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

Did not.

Then please explain their decision...

The decision only said that because of the explicit animus that the Commission showed the baker and beliefs, that the penalty handed down by the Commission was vacated and the Commission determination of 'discrimination' in that particular instance was vacated.

SCOTUS punted on the question if there is/was a requirement to bake any cake in the circumstances.

Comprende? Or should I type extra-special slow for you to make up for ******* response(s)?

(06-26-2018 01:25 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 01:04 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:53 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Did or did not the SCOTUS rule the baker did not have make the cakes. While it was a very narrow decision in its scope they still ruled that way. Stop being a f’ing hypocrite.

Did not.

Then please explain their decision...

The decision only said that because of the explicit animus that the Commission showed the baker and beliefs, that the penalty handed down by the Commission was vacated and the Commission determination of 'discrimination' in that particular instance was vacated.

SCOTUS punted on the question if there is/was a requirement to bake any cake in the circumstances.

Comprende? Or should I type extra-special slow for you to make up for ******* response(s)?

So no fine and they punt. That is called permission to do the same thing until there is some kind of change in the law.

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

(06-26-2018 06:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Not even remotely the same thing. Baker's aren't denying service outright, but are objecting to taking part in a specific activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Several in ques to in these cases have sold cakes and florists have sold flowers to gay patrons but refuse to take part in wedding ceremonies. Sarah Sander's family didn't ask for something specific or special. They simply tried to obtain the exact same generic service that the restaurant provides to everybody else. There was no special request or custom item to be made that differentiated from what any other patron of the restaurant would receive and it was not requested as any part of a religious ceremony or act.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2018 08:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 06:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Not even remotely the same thing. Baker's aren't denying service outright, but are objecting to taking part in a specific activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Several in ques to in these cases have sold cakes and florists have sold flowers to gay patrons but refuse to take part in wedding ceremonies. Sarah Sander's family didn't ask for something specific or special. They simply tried to obtain the exact same generic service that the restaurant provides to everybody else. There was no special request or custom item to be made that differentiated from what any other patron of the restaurant would receive and it was not requested as any part of a religious ceremony or act.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

How about the bakery in 2012 that refused Joe Biden and Paul Ryan threw a rally for? Is that the same thing? Was not Biden trying to get the same generic service? People go to bakers for their expertise in baking and decorating. It is all part of their generic service. It is not like the Red Hen is serving Mc Donald’s

(06-26-2018 08:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 08:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 06:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 03:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  If bakers don't have to bake cakes...

Not even remotely the same thing. Baker's aren't denying service outright, but are objecting to taking part in a specific activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Several in ques to in these cases have sold cakes and florists have sold flowers to gay patrons but refuse to take part in wedding ceremonies. Sarah Sander's family didn't ask for something specific or special. They simply tried to obtain the exact same generic service that the restaurant provides to everybody else. There was no special request or custom item to be made that differentiated from what any other patron of the restaurant would receive and it was not requested as any part of a religious ceremony or act.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

How about the bakery in 2012 that refused Joe Biden and Paul Ryan threw a rally for? Is that the same thing? Was not Biden trying to get the same generic service? People go to bakers for their expertise in baking and decorating. It is all part of their generic service. It is not like the Red Hen is serving Mc Donald’s

Good gracious are you dense. Biden didn't just walk in to get a cookie like every other patron. His 'team' walked in and asked if they could get a photo op for campaign promotion.

Do you ever get anything right?

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2018 08:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  How about the bakery in 2012 that refused Joe Biden and Paul Ryan threw a rally for? Is that the same thing? Was not Biden trying to get the same generic service? People go to bakers for their expertise in baking and decorating. It is all part of their generic service. It is not like the Red Hen is serving Mc Donald’s

(06-26-2018 10:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Saw this in a quoted reply and had to unblock just to have my shot at exposing more of Mr X's absolute ignorance.

(06-26-2018 08:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  How about the bakery in 2012 that refused Joe Biden and Paul Ryan threw a rally for? Is that the same thing? Was not Biden trying to get the same generic service? People go to bakers for their expertise in baking and decorating. It is all part of their generic service. It is not like the Red Hen is serving Mc Donald’s

Let's compare the two examples you are trying to equate.

The bakery in Radford. VA that turned away Joe Biden in 2012 is called Crumb and Get it. It's owned by Chris McMurray. Mr McMurray was contacted by someone from the advance team for Obama/Biden 2012 who wanted to use his bakery as a campaign stop. Mr McMurray declined to allow his business to be used to advance a political agenda he did not agree with. Being a campaign stop there would have been news coverage and the implied notion that since he hosted the event that he, a small business owner, supported a campaign that was detrimental to small business owners everywhere. Joe Biden never physically set foot in the bakery.

Sarah Sanders and her family were eating a private meal totally unconnected to the administration or any political campaign. There was no press and had the BS not taken place there's probably absolutely no chance that anybody outside of the people physically in the restaurant would ever connect Sanders to the Red Hen. The Sanders party was seated and had already started to be served when they were asked to leave.

Now you tell me exactly how the two situations compare. I would say that the mental gymnastics will at least be entertaining but you've shown in your time on this forum that if brain power were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to burn a piss ant off a sidewalk.