Are you going to post this dumb shit on every thread? The "alt right" is a dumbass group of nobody's and everyone condemned what happened. You and your ilk didn't seem to care it was a Bernie supporter, and if it had been a Muslim you'd start a hashtag that says #notallmuslims. But again, one dumb ass white kid does this shit and all whites are back to being nazis again. Identity politics is stupid. And Trump should have condemned "harder", imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a dog whistle for the alt. right and the KKK from during the election campaign
CNN Feb. 28, 2016
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?”
Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
Tapper: “But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support?”
Trump: “Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.”
Tapper: “The Ku Klux Klan?”
Trump: “But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.”
Tapper: “Okay. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but…”
Trump: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/?utm_term=.a3cc3083a708
and now another with Trump’s “on many sides” quote.

gut;1866381 wrote:You absolutely do, if catering is a service to the public that you offer (in many states, and every state if it ever goes to the SCOTUS)



.

No, I have to serve them, meaning I have to let them come into my store and purchase from me with no difference from any other customer. I would have cater to them if they were having say a birthday party, etc.

I do not have to go against my religious belief system and cater to a same-sex marriage. You can not force someone to go against their religious beliefs, THAT is already in the Constitution, matter of fact it is the first Amendment.

There have already been cases where an employee of the penal system is a religious objector to the death penalty (Thou shall not kill). Said person performs every service in the penitentiary but is not forced to perform/work in the execution of an inmate.

Same case has been made in the military, heck, they just made a movie about the guy in WW2 that wanted to serve as a medic but his religious beliefs wouldn't let him carry a gun. Army rules at the time required everyone to handle a firearm.

Guess which side won? He got to be a medic, in battle, without a firearm.

Legal precedent is on my side.

You only have what you believe the SCOTUS MAY say in the future.

jmog;1866545 wrote:No, I have to serve them, meaning I have to let them come into my store and purchase from me with no difference from any other customer. I would have cater to them if they were having say a birthday party, etc.

I do not have to go against my religious belief system and cater to a same-sex marriage. You can not force someone to go against their religious beliefs, THAT is already in the Constitution, matter of fact it is the first Amendment.

There have already been cases where an employee of the penal system is a religious objector to the death penalty (Thou shall not kill). Said person performs every service in the penitentiary but is not forced to perform/work in the execution of an inmate.

Same case has been made in the military, heck, they just made a movie about the guy in WW2 that wanted to serve as a medic but his religious beliefs wouldn't let him carry a gun. Army rules at the time required everyone to handle a firearm.

Guess which side won? He got to be a medic, in battle, without a firearm.

Legal precedent is on my side.

You only have what you believe the SCOTUS MAY say in the future.

The facts and circumstances you are describing are not "precedents" for the particular issue you two are debating. Neither of them involve institutions providing services or goods to the general public.

More relevant cases are Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States.

In these cases, Bob Jones University refused to integrate and allow black students to attend because it claimed that it taught fundamentalist christian religious beliefs including a sincere belief that God intended for whites and blacks to live separately and not intermarry and thus allowing non-white students would violate their first amendment rights.

The IRS revoked their tax exempt status on grounds that they did not cater to individuals regardless of their race following the passage of the Civil Rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment did not protect Bob Jones' sincere religious beliefs against integration from having their tax exempt status revoked.

The basic idea is that in the past appeals to sincere religious beliefs that would support purposeful protected-class discrimination on the part of institutions open to the general public have not been found to be protected by the first amendment. That is different than allowing accommodations for sincere religious beliefs in private affairs or courses of conduct wherein one would not be discriminating against protected classes such as in your examples.

In other words, you do not have legal precedent on your side.

Consistent with this thread - a common meme I'm seeing is that anti-white racism on the part of teh LiBrulz is what is really at fault for the Alt-Right goobers. Also fascinating to see how often conservative media talking heads made sure to point out over and over again how the nut job who tried to murder those members of Congress was a Bernie supporter - no painstaking efforts from these folks to point out the Maumee, Ohio nutjob's political ideology.

Why is it so hard to admit that your own political ideology has nutjobs that need to be disowned and shamed?

BoatShoes;1866581 wrote:The facts and circumstances you are describing are not "precedents" for the particular issue you two are debating. Neither of them involve institutions providing services or goods to the general public.

More relevant cases are Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States.

In these cases, Bob Jones University refused to integrate and allow black students to attend because it claimed that it taught fundamentalist christian religious beliefs including a sincere belief that God intended for whites and blacks to live separately and not intermarry and thus allowing non-white students would violate their first amendment rights.

The IRS revoked their tax exempt status on grounds that they did not cater to individuals regardless of their race following the passage of the Civil Rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment did not protect Bob Jones' sincere religious beliefs against integration from having their tax exempt status revoked.

The basic idea is that in the past appeals to sincere religious beliefs that would support purposeful protected-class discrimination on the part of institutions open to the general public have not been found to be protected by the first amendment. That is different than allowing accommodations for sincere religious beliefs in private affairs or courses of conduct wherein one would not be discriminating against protected classes such as in your examples.

In other words, you do not have legal precedent on your side.

Considering LGTB is not a race, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, the BJU case was utterly stupid (on BJ side) because BJU could not and no one ever did find actual verses in the Bible "against" black people stating they were anything but human.

So BJU lost because they had no valid argument to base their beliefs on their own religious texts.

The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality, so the case on that side is actually legitimate religious believe, where discriminating against blacks did not.

jmog;1866583 wrote:Considering LGTB is not a race, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, the BJU case was utterly stupid (on BJ side) because BJU could not and no one ever did find actual verses in the Bible "against" black people stating they were anything but human.

So BJU lost because they had no valid argument to base their beliefs on their own religious texts.

The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality, so the case on that side is actually legitimate religious believe, where discriminating against blacks did not.

I'm going to ignore your first line because I never suggested LGBT was a race. Maybe one day I will stop expecting responses beyond drivel from our resident scientist.

As to your second point, Biblical interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. The Bible has routinely been used to justify segregation of races. Check out the organization called "Faith & Heritage" which preaches "Occidental Christianity for Preserving Western Culture and People."

Bob Jones gave a radio address on Easter Sunday in 1960 on whether Segregation was Scriptural.

This sticks out:

[FONT=&quot]What does God teach about the races of the world? If you will go to the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, you will find where Paul preached a special sermon on Mars Hill. . . .
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Now, notice – this is an important verse – the twenty-sixth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (in some of the best original manuscripts, the word “blood” is not there; but it is not important anyhow, because the thoughts are the same). “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…” But do not stop there, “…and hath determined the times appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Now, what does that say? That says that God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation. That is as clear as anything that was ever said.[/FONT]

While you might think his interpretation of biblical scripture is insane - his belief that God is for segregation is just as sincere as your belief that God is against gay marriage.

The biblical argument holds no water the second someone does business with an adulterer. It's stupid AF.

Trump directly condemned neo-nazis, the KKK, and White supremacists. A day or two late, but there it is.

iclfan2;1866601 wrote:Trump directly condemned neo-nazis, the KKK, and White supremacists. A day or two late, but there it is.

we are still waiting for Obama to condemn BLM, Ferguson, Trayvon and other incidents where he jumped to conclusions and made everything about racism when it ended up not being so.

GOONx19;1866599 wrote:The biblical argument holds no water the second someone does business with an adulterer. It's stupid AF.

I don't disagree with you at all, but the analog would be for them to marry the person they committed adultery with and "force" the caterer to cater that wedding.

If the caterer knows the situation and still caters the wedding, all while refusing to cater a same sex wedding, then they are quite frankly retarded.

BS, you should really understand how BJ severely stretches one verse to fit his own narrative.

You don't have to stretch anything to know what the Bible says about homosexuality.


For whatever its worth, I am for same sex marriage, I just don't think you should be allowed to force people who are against it to actively participate in their wedding, even if it is a business or not.

BoatShoes;1866589 wrote:I'm going to ignore your first line because I never suggested LGBT was a race. Maybe one day I will stop expecting responses beyond drivel from our resident scientist.

As to your second point, Biblical interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. The Bible has routinely been used to justify segregation of races. Check out the organization called "Faith & Heritage" which preaches "Occidental Christianity for Preserving Western Culture and People."

Bob Jones gave a radio address on Easter Sunday in 1960 on whether Segregation was Scriptural.

This sticks out:



While you might think his interpretation of biblical scripture is insane - his belief that God is for segregation is just as sincere as your belief that God is against gay marriage.

Like I said above, BJ severely stretched one verse.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with that particular sermon/stretch, I noticed you forgot to mention that in that sermon BJ stated that there was no "inferior race" unless one race is more in the will of God. He then stated that the white race was terribly wrong for bringing the black race over to North America to make them slaves. He mentioned that since slavery was abolished that blacks had turned Christian in droves and were definitely more in the "will" of God than whites. He actually said that blacks were "superior" to whites because they were more in touch with God. He then said that integration would ruin black churches.

Like I said, his interpretation was stupid, but you can see that in his actual words he held blacks to a higher esteem than whites.

BoatShoes;1866582 wrote:Consistent with this thread - a common meme I'm seeing is that anti-white racism on the part of teh LiBrulz is what is really at fault for the Alt-Right goobers. Also fascinating to see how often conservative media talking heads made sure to point out over and over again how the nut job who tried to murder those members of Congress was a Bernie supporter - no painstaking efforts from these folks to point out the Maumee, Ohio nutjob's political ideology.

Why is it so hard to admit that your own political ideology has nutjobs that need to be disowned and shamed?

Might want to do a little research on the idiot from Maumee before jumping to conclusions.

iclfan2;1866601 wrote:Trump directly condemned neo-nazis, the KKK, and White supremacists. A day or two late, but there it is.

Gosh it was rough for him to put down his core supporters. He needed 2 days to think about it.

isadore;1866634 wrote:Gosh it was rough for him to put down his core supporters. He needed 2 days to think about it.

yea sure that is what it is.

jmog;1866612 wrote:Like I said above, BJ severely stretched one verse.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with that particular sermon/stretch, I noticed you forgot to mention that in that sermon BJ stated that there was no "inferior race" unless one race is more in the will of God. He then stated that the white race was terribly wrong for bringing the black race over to North America to make them slaves. He mentioned that since slavery was abolished that blacks had turned Christian in droves and were definitely more in the "will" of God than whites. He actually said that blacks were "superior" to whites because they were more in touch with God. He then said that integration would ruin black churches.

Like I said, his interpretation was stupid, but you can see that in his actual words he held blacks to a higher esteem than whites.

Oh my fucking God Jmog why are you going on a tirade about how Bob Jones was merely used the Bible to justify segregation rather than white supremacy??? Literally wutt??? Did you read where I quoted the title of his sermon "Segregation is Scriptural" not "White Supremacy is Scriptural". Do you know the difference between segregation and supremacy?

superman;1866619 wrote:Might want to do a little research on the idiot from Maumee before jumping to conclusions.

Maybe I'm missing something. Got this from ABC News which interviewed his social studies teacher.

Weimer recalled that school officials had singled out Fields when he was in 9th grade for his political beliefs and "deeply held, radical" convictions on race and Nazism."It was a known issue," he said.
Weimer said Fields left school for a while, and when he came back he was quieter about politics until his senior year, when politicians started to declare their candidacy for the 2016 presidential race. Weimer said Fields was a big Trump supporter because of what he believed to be Trump's views on race. Trump's proposal to build a border wall with Mexico was particularly appealing to Fields, Weimer said. Fields also admired the Confederacy for its military prowess, he said, though they never spoke about slavery.
As a senior, Fields wanted to join the army, and Weimer, a former officer in the Ohio National Guard, guided him through the process of applying, he said, believing that the military would expose Fields to people of different races and backgrounds and help him dispel his white supremacist views. But Fields was ultimately turned down, which was a big blow, Weimer said. Weimer said he lost contact with Fields after he graduated and was surprised to hear reports that Fields had enlisted in the army.

jmog;1866612 wrote:Like I said above, BJ severely stretched one verse.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with that particular sermon/stretch, I noticed you forgot to mention that in that sermon BJ stated that there was no "inferior race" unless one race is more in the will of God. He then stated that the white race was terribly wrong for bringing the black race over to North America to make them slaves. He mentioned that since slavery was abolished that blacks had turned Christian in droves and were definitely more in the "will" of God than whites. He actually said that blacks were "superior" to whites because they were more in touch with God. He then said that integration would ruin black churches.

Like I said, his interpretation was stupid, but you can see that in his actual words he held blacks to a higher esteem than whites.

You think he seriously stretched one verse. I think you seriously stretch a verse when you claim a random line in Job is evidence that Dinosaurs were on the Ark. Bob Jones' beliefs are just as sincere as yours.

BoatShoes;1866650 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something. Got this from ABC News which interviewed his social studies teacher.

Weimer said Fields was a big Trump supporter because of what he believed to be Trump's views on race

Did you ever think his belief may be media driven rather then by Trump's actual beliefs?

majorspark;1866653 wrote:Did you ever think his belief may be media driven rather then by Trump's actual beliefs?

Are you parroting conservative talking points, Major? :RpS_lol:

Well, it seems that everyday there is news about conservative 'tubers getting demonetized, along with small/independent journalists. But youtube keeps shooting itself in the foot with this, because the people that they are demonetizing have been revenue sharing with youtube. It will not hurt them, really, in a financial manner, but it will lose revenue over time because uploaders have seen this coming for some time and have already branched out to other places such as Minds or Patreon.

But here's where it's getting tricky. Youtube has demonetized Diamond and Silk. The howls of outrage have started that youtube is now preying on black folk because of differing political viewpoints. Apparently, black folk are only a protected class if they fall into the left category.
You can't make this crap up!

Arkansas man gets threats and his address posted to social media by idiot liberals trying to dox people. Instead of realizing the alt-right looks like idiots now and embracing "love not hate" they go about making themselves look like total dip shits.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html?referer=https://t.co/G8YSA1pgRD?amp=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This entire graphic is fake news. Not only do they start at September 12th, 2011, they also don't include pulse night club in the Islamist number AND "3 times as many fatal attacks" is a complete lie bc she is just saying attacks and deaths which could be 1 attack w 50 deaths. This was CBS! They know what they are doing. Funny how they didn't include any other fringe group either.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spock;1866637 wrote:yea sure that is what it is.

Glad you agree,
gosh Trump's strongest supporters where hoods or Nazi armbands.

isadore;1866668 wrote:Glad you agree,
gosh Trump's strongest supporters where hoods or Nazi armbands.

Huh. Well, which supporters do you think this comes from?