If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Right Wing News)   Seven examples of discrimination against Christians in America   (rightwingnews.com) divider line 232
    More: Interesting, discrimination against christians, Lackland Air Force Base, Liberty Institute, tea party groups, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, tax year, base commander, Jim Hoft  
•       •       •

4628 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 8:35 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 12:41:50 PM

wxboy: BMulligan: strathcona: HindiDiscoMonster: d23: factoryconnection: urbangirl: Local elected officials are responding by doubling down on city council meeting prayers and their attorneys are backing them up.

Everyone likes a theocracy when it is their particular brand in charge.

When "Christian" becomes the official religion then the Baptists will start with the crap that the Catholics aren't real Christians.  It doesn't end.  If you're against genocide then separation of church and state is the only sane policy.

well... Catholics aren't Christian. They are Idolaters

Are you retarded?  Just asking.

You've never heard this point of view from an Evangelical Christian? I used to hear it all the time, when my family was identifiably Catholic and I went to school with born-agains.

IIRC from my childhood as an Evangelical, the implication is that Catholics worship Mary and the other saints almost on the same level as God and Jesus, including pilgrimages to holy sites associated with them, and therefore are breaking the 2nd commandment at least, and possibly the 1st.


I still go to a Baptist church.  Every so often, I'll see a preacher go off on a rant about other denominations which are not actually 'Christian'.  The following are the reasons usually given (I take no personal responsibility for any inaccuracies, I am merely repeating what I've heard):

Catholics: saying a Hail Mary proves they are worshiping Mary instead of God.  Also, using religious icons of the saints counts as idolatry.
Jehovah's Witnesses: they believe Jesus made the Earth instead of God, in direct contravention to the very first sentence in the Bible
Mormoms: they deny the divinity of Christ and believe that all Christians can evolve into being their own 'god'.
Methodists: they use something other than Welch's grape juice as the Blood of Christ when enacting the Lord's Supper.  Plus occasional disagreements over whether dancing is a sin.

And if you don't think that these distinctions mean anything - don't forget that JFK had to all but swear that the Pope wouldn't be giving him orders before he was elected to the Presidency.
 
2013-09-18 12:44:58 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.


I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.
 
2013-09-18 12:47:46 PM

urbangirl: Here in Kentucky, there's currently a rather large kerfuffle because the state School Board send letters to the locals telling them they can't allow Gideons to hand out Bibles to second graders IN SCHOOL DURING SCHOOL HOURS.  Evidently this has been going on for years and someone finally complained to the ACLU.

Local elected officials are responding by doubling down on city council meeting prayers and their attorneys are backing them up.


What/who are Gideons?  I'm well aware that they deposit bibles at all the hotels (I assume this is some kind of building code thing, or something), but I can't say that I've ever met someone who has labelled themself a Gideon.

Has anyone ever met a "Gideon"?  Are they mysterious cloaked figures who stay just out of eyesight and memory?
 
2013-09-18 12:48:04 PM
FTA - The majority of Americans are Christians, but we're not treated with respect by the culture, the schools, or by our politicians.


"for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." - Galatians 6:7
 
2013-09-18 12:49:21 PM
will someone please tell these people God isn't read?
 
2013-09-18 12:49:47 PM

UncomfortableSilence: Why is it that the people most violently scared of Sharia law are the ones attempting to create a Christian version of it here?


Because if we can make it a crime to belong to a particular ethnic group, which Islam is as far as flyover America is concerned, then we are that little bit closer to eventually, someday bringing back Jim Crow in all his inbred glory.
 
2013-09-18 12:49:56 PM

pacified: will someone please tell these people God isn't read real?


I'll show myself out...
 
2013-09-18 12:50:08 PM

ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.


I refer you to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations fall under Federal civil rights protections.
 
2013-09-18 12:51:44 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.


It took something like 100 years AND a law to eliminate that.  You think things would be different now?
 
2013-09-18 12:52:27 PM
Still better than the list of 27,402 examples of discrimination by Christians.
 
2013-09-18 12:52:46 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.


Except, of course, that it didn't.

If you open a business taking advantage of the infrastructure provided by our government, the contract enforcement and legal protections provided by our government, and the fire and police protection provided by our government, then you don't get to use that business to treat anyone who helps pay for that government and those services like a second-class citizen.
 
2013-09-18 12:53:11 PM

Nuclear Monk: urbangirl: Here in Kentucky, there's currently a rather large kerfuffle because the state School Board send letters to the locals telling them they can't allow Gideons to hand out Bibles to second graders IN SCHOOL DURING SCHOOL HOURS.  Evidently this has been going on for years and someone finally complained to the ACLU.

Local elected officials are responding by doubling down on city council meeting prayers and their attorneys are backing them up.

What/who are Gideons?  I'm well aware that they deposit bibles at all the hotels (I assume this is some kind of building code thing, or something), but I can't say that I've ever met someone who has labelled themself a Gideon.

Has anyone ever met a "Gideon"?  Are they mysterious cloaked figures who stay just out of eyesight and memory?


My girlfriend saw one give a lecture, I think at the Baptist church her grandmother went to. Her recollection was that there are no female Gideons, and that the guy was a dick.
 
2013-09-18 12:54:02 PM

ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.


The law disagrees with you.
 
2013-09-18 12:54:04 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.


They didn't have a sign that said that. They refused service for a stupid reason, but it is their call to refuse service. They didn't take money then not deliver; they didn't charge more just because they were homosexual. Those are would be true legal matters. Being stupid and turning down business is not.
 
2013-09-18 12:54:18 PM

Karac: wxboy: BMulligan: strathcona: HindiDiscoMonster: d23: factoryconnection: urbangirl: Local elected officials are responding by doubling down on city council meeting prayers and their attorneys are backing them up.

Everyone likes a theocracy when it is their particular brand in charge.

When "Christian" becomes the official religion then the Baptists will start with the crap that the Catholics aren't real Christians.  It doesn't end.  If you're against genocide then separation of church and state is the only sane policy.

well... Catholics aren't Christian. They are Idolaters

Are you retarded?  Just asking.

You've never heard this point of view from an Evangelical Christian? I used to hear it all the time, when my family was identifiably Catholic and I went to school with born-agains.

IIRC from my childhood as an Evangelical, the implication is that Catholics worship Mary and the other saints almost on the same level as God and Jesus, including pilgrimages to holy sites associated with them, and therefore are breaking the 2nd commandment at least, and possibly the 1st.

I still go to a Baptist church.  Every so often, I'll see a preacher go off on a rant about other denominations which are not actually 'Christian'.  The following are the reasons usually given (I take no personal responsibility for any inaccuracies, I am merely repeating what I've heard):

Catholics: saying a Hail Mary proves they are worshiping Mary instead of God.  Also, using religious icons of the saints counts as idolatry.
Jehovah's Witnesses: they believe Jesus made the Earth instead of God, in direct contravention to the very first sentence in the Bible
Mormoms: they deny the divinity of Christ and believe that all Christians can evolve into being their own 'god'.
Methodists: they use something other than Welch's grape juice as the Blood of Christ when enacting the Lord's Supper.  Plus occasional disagreements over whether dancing is a sin.

And if you don't think that these distinctions mea ...


I thought Jesus was supposed to be god?  Some sort of trinity thing?
 
2013-09-18 12:57:16 PM

wxboy: China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.

It took something like 100 years AND a law to eliminate that.  You think things would be different now?



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/burn-in-hell-you-racist-p ig s-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-couples-wedding-cake-det ails-creepy-alleged-break-in-ongoing-challenges/

Kinda looks like it's working so far, yeah.
 
2013-09-18 12:58:40 PM

iq_in_binary: I'm sorry, are we throwing you farkers to lions for entertainment again? When did I miss that?

Oh we're not? Shut the fark up.


Interesting fact.  Christians weren't thrown to the lions for believing in Christ.  Christians had a reputation for disruption, vandalism and sowing rebellion.  It was those factors that got them tossed to the lions.

 Rome had to maintain its bread and circuses.  There were no rights of the accused, and all criminals where subjected to summary judgments to entertain the masses.
 
2013-09-18 12:59:16 PM

hubiestubert: 19.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
Cicadas may be out.


Four Legged insects?

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...

Ignoring that the Sabbath is Saturday and at best Sunday is the Lord's Day,  Not working means a heck of a lot more than no open liquor stores, it means no  one works no restaurants to visit no pizza delivered and no one can cook so pop tarts. No open stores, no tv no radio etc.

Great list you had that ready to post right, didn't type it from memory?
 
2013-09-18 01:01:30 PM

ole prophet: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

They didn't have a sign that said that. They refused service for a stupid reason, but it is their call to refuse service. They didn't take money then not deliver; they didn't charge more just because they were homosexual. Those are would be true legal matters. Being stupid and turning down business is not.


You're wrong in both fact and principle. And if I were to open a business and refuse service to Christians, these very same people claiming that right would flip their goddamn lids.

Hell, they thought it was discrimination that people were boycotting Chick-fil-a in protest of the owner's bigotry.
 
2013-09-18 01:02:13 PM

sprawl15: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

I refer you to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations fall under Federal civil rights protections.


Public accommodations are making sure there is wheelchair ramp. Unless there is a gay force field door put up that restricts access homosexuals, I think you are just grabbing at straws.
 
2013-09-18 01:04:11 PM

China White Tea: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/burn-in-hell-you-racist-p ig s-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-couples-wedding-cake-det ails-creepy-alleged-break-in-ongoing-challenges/

Kinda looks like it's working so far, yeah.

"Maybe your god will send you some cat food to eat when you are living on the street?"


i512.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-18 01:05:16 PM

spongeboob: hubiestubert: 19.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
Cicadas may be out.

Four Legged insects?

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...
Ignoring that the Sabbath is Saturday and at best Sunday is the Lord's Day,  Not working means a heck of a lot more than no open liquor stores, it means no  one works no restaurants to visit no pizza delivered and no one can cook so pop tarts. No open stores, no tv no radio etc.

Great list you had that ready to post right, didn't type it from memory?


It does go back to football again, since how many folks work in those dang stadiums?  Why aren't people threatening to burn down their local network affiliates?
 
2013-09-18 01:07:13 PM

ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

I refer you to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations fall under Federal civil rights protections.

Public accommodations are making sure there is wheelchair ramp. Unless there is a gay force field door put up that restricts access homosexuals, I think you are just grabbing at straws.


No. A public accommodation is an entity open to the public.accessible to those with handicaps. But, that is not what defines a "public accommodation."

"Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
 
2013-09-18 01:08:48 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.


Are you a racist or do you really not understand the implications of your position?  I ask only so I know what comment to add when I Farky you in "Twit Grey".

Cheers.
 
2013-09-18 01:08:58 PM
er. "No. A public accommodation is an entity open to the public. Yes, they must be accessible to those with handicaps. But, that is not what defines a "public accommodation."
 
2013-09-18 01:10:00 PM

ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

I refer you to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations fall under Federal civil rights protections.

Public accommodations are making sure there is wheelchair ramp. Unless there is a gay force field door put up that restricts access homosexuals, I think you are just grabbing at straws.


So it wouldn't be OK if the owner's put up a force field to keep gays from using their business, but restricting their access by just telling them to fark off (but not with each other) would be OK?
 
2013-09-18 01:13:10 PM

technicolor-misfit: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

I refer you to Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations fall under Federal civil rights protections.

Public accommodations are making sure there is wheelchair ramp. Unless there is a gay force field door put up that restricts access homosexuals, I think you are just grabbing at straws.

No. A public accommodation is an entity open to the public.accessible to those with handicaps. But, that is not what defines a "public accommodation."

"Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations


And, to head the next post off at the pass, homosexuality has been included under Title VII several times now, making the case that it's a violation of Title II to deny service based on sexual orientation an absolutely viable one (assuming there isn't already precedence).
 
2013-09-18 01:15:03 PM
"Why do people keep saying my shat stinks? I'm being persecuted!!!"
 
2013-09-18 01:15:03 PM

Rapmaster2000: 20.  We never get any good bands.  We have to listen to Christian rap and then we have to tell people "did you ever listen to DC Talk?  They're really positive."  That's so lame.

21.  All of our celebrities turn out to be whores.  Whether it's Britney, Miley, Beyonce... all of them.  It's all Jesus this and Jesus that and then they turn 19 and they're performing anallingus on national TV with a bear.  It's embarassing.

22.  Have you ever had the misfortune of listening to Christian comedians?  Anything with the word Christian on the front is bound to be bad.  Christian Comedy is like Diet Coke or Sugar-Free Jello.  They tell you it sucks right on the label.


I'm actually a fan of DC Talk's rock/alternative stuff (Jesus Freak, Welcome to the Freakshow, Supernatural). Third Day does pretty good Southern Rock. Jennifer Knapp's a good folk rock singer, though after she came out a large chunk of the Christian community shunned her. Plumb has good alternative albums (Plumb & Chaotic Resolve).
 
2013-09-18 01:16:13 PM
fc03.deviantart.net

Hello, Mr. Hawkins. I'd like to play a game.
You list one, actual, contextual, factual instance of Christian DISCRIMINATION in this country.
I will list three against people of other religions. We'll see who runs out first.
 
2013-09-18 01:16:14 PM

Oxygen_Thief: There is nothing wrong with living according to the principles that Jesus modled.


In fact, that would be a really cool thing for Christians to do.  Has it ever happened in the US?
 
2013-09-18 01:16:38 PM
"You can support gay marriage or you can be Christian, but you can't do both."

Really Jesus? Is that true? Really? Ok, well thanks for clarifying. PS: I didn't know you were fat.
 
2013-09-18 01:16:44 PM
FTFA:     "4) You can support gay marriage or you can be Christian, but you can't do both."

That is completely unsubstantiated .
 
2013-09-18 01:17:24 PM

wxboy: It took something like 100 years AND a law to eliminate that. You think things would be different now?


There is a subset of libertarianism that believes that discriminatory business practices would virtually go away  if businesses were not forced to accommodate, due to the fact that most people wouldn't want to do business or be seen doing business with Stormfront McGee's White Pride Bakery.  This isn't based on any real-world examples other than the general philosophy that any government action on a business is always going to be a net negative.

It's also frequently advanced by upper middle class white dudes who see to have an unhealthy obsession with having the freedom to keep black people out of their stores (not my store, totes asking for a friend).
 
2013-09-18 01:17:33 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.

Are you a racist or do you really not understand the implications of your position?  I ask only so I know what comment to add when I Farky you in "Twit Grey".

Cheers.


Ah.  The good old false dichotomy - last bastion of the simpleton farker.
 
2013-09-18 01:19:35 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.


Before the Civil Rights act (of 1964?) African Americans were routinely denied access to restaurants, hotels, stores, etc.  The Whites Only signs didn't cause those businesses to fail back then.  Are you so sure that it would play out differently today?  Are you willing to risk the lives and well-being of racial minorities on it?
 
2013-09-18 01:21:30 PM

ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.


People who thought like you were the reason there were "sundown towns" and why African-Americans had to create the "Negro Motorist Green Book."
If you hold yourself out an a public accomodation, then you serve all the public instead of just the ones you think are the right color, or go to the right church, etc.
 
2013-09-18 01:24:04 PM

hubiestubert: Time to dust off the old list of things that Leviticus forbids in addition to the homoerotica...


Why? It's a thread about Christians.
 
2013-09-18 01:25:17 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.

Are you a racist or do you really not understand the implications of your position?  I ask only so I know what comment to add when I Farky you in "Twit Grey".

Cheers.

Ah.  The good old false dichotomy - last bastion of the simpleton farker.


Well then, ignore his false dichotomy and just answer the question.  If discrimination was so damaging to businesses, then how did places with 'no coloreds' signs stay open so long?
 
2013-09-18 01:25:19 PM

Graffito: Before the Civil Rights act (of 1964?) African Americans were routinely denied access to restaurants, hotels, stores, etc.  The Whites Only signs didn't cause those businesses to fail back then.  Are you so sure that it would play out differently today?  Are you willing to risk the lives and well-being of racial minorities on it?


Before the civil rights after of 1964, we didn't have a critical mass of people who actually believed that shiat isn't okay.  There are still some noisy holdouts (especially in the south) but have you  seen how pissed people get whenever one of these stories comes up?  Even the instances that have involved a court have been rendered largely irrelevant long before they made it there, due to the angry fist of the tweeterverse that came down on the heads of the transgressors.

It's really difficult to raise a proper bigot these days, and the ones we have are graciously dying of old age at a pretty good clip.
 
2013-09-18 01:26:17 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: You probably should expand on that statement.  I'm having trouble understanding why an activity intended to create an emotional response related to a symbol is a stupid way to start a group discussion on the impact of symbols.  It wouldn't work nearly so well outside the US (from out here, the US fangasms over their versions of Jesus are a bit scary).  It's not substantially dissimilar from the story a few weeks back about a teacher that did the same thing with a flag.


I don't see why creating an emotional response is necessary to teach this lesson.  Jesus is not guaranteed to be a meaningful symbol to all people; the depiction of his name on a piece of paper is not guaranteed to be a meaningful symbol; and if one person does not regard it as a meaningful symbol out of fear that others around them do and will take offense, then the whole lesson is for shiat.

There is plenty of empirical evidence that meaningful symbols exist for people and that desecration or exaltation of said symbols elicits an emotional response in those to whom those symbols are important without some kind of grandstanding.

If you're going to do this exercise, at least ask people to choose a symbol important to them personally.
 
2013-09-18 01:30:29 PM

China White Tea: I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself. We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.


You are either trolling, lying, or completely ignorant of America.  Blatant racism has become more acceptable in parts of the south than it used to be a couple decades ago.  If there were no legal penalties, some businesses would go "white only" and be able to charge higher prices of the customers who desire "white only" service.  Some public institutions would probably follow suit as well.
 
2013-09-18 01:31:05 PM

Karac: Jehovah's Witnesses: they believe Jesus made the Earth instead of God, in direct contravention to the very first sentence in the Bible


Well I guess these Baptists aren't Christians either then
 
2013-09-18 01:31:51 PM
Karac:

Well then, ignore his false dichotomy and just answer the question.  If discrimination was so damaging to businesses, then how did places with 'no coloreds' signs stay open so long?

Because the social environment was completely different in 1964 and there were plenty of people who actually agreed that a "no coloreds" policy was good and just.  Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but when a company gets run out of business because they wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have a hard time buying that the Civil Rights Act is the only thing keeping discrimination at bay today.
 
2013-09-18 01:32:25 PM

tryptik: Brian_of_Nazareth: You probably should expand on that statement.  I'm having trouble understanding why an activity intended to create an emotional response related to a symbol is a stupid way to start a group discussion on the impact of symbols.  It wouldn't work nearly so well outside the US (from out here, the US fangasms over their versions of Jesus are a bit scary).  It's not substantially dissimilar from the story a few weeks back about a teacher that did the same thing with a flag.

I don't see why creating an emotional response is necessary to teach this lesson.  Jesus is not guaranteed to be a meaningful symbol to all people; the depiction of his name on a piece of paper is not guaranteed to be a meaningful symbol; and if one person does not regard it as a meaningful symbol out of fear that others around them do and will take offense, then the whole lesson is for shiat.

There is plenty of empirical evidence that meaningful symbols exist for people and that desecration or exaltation of said symbols elicits an emotional response in those to whom those symbols are important without some kind of grandstanding.

If you're going to do this exercise, at least ask people to choose a symbol important to them personally.


Considering how many people are, and have been, named "Jesus", I really don't see why anyone would hesitate to step on a peice of paper with that written on it.
Of course, a teacher was threatened with death and had to flee to a different country after her class of school-children named a teddybear "Mohammad".  It didn't matter that the children named the bear in honor of one of their classmates who was in the hospital.
 
2013-09-18 01:37:04 PM

China White Tea: Graffito: Before the Civil Rights act (of 1964?) African Americans were routinely denied access to restaurants, hotels, stores, etc.  The Whites Only signs didn't cause those businesses to fail back then.  Are you so sure that it would play out differently today?  Are you willing to risk the lives and well-being of racial minorities on it?

Before the civil rights after of 1964, we didn't have a critical mass of people who actually believed that shiat isn't okay.  There are still some noisy holdouts (especially in the south) but have you  seen how pissed people get whenever one of these stories comes up?  Even the instances that have involved a court have been rendered largely irrelevant long before they made it there, due to the angry fist of the tweeterverse that came down on the heads of the transgressors.

It's really difficult to raise a proper bigot these days, and the ones we have are graciously dying of old age at a pretty good clip.


Are you seriously trying to say that nowadays we have a critical mass of people who believe discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is not OK.  Because if you are, allow me to retort:

thinkprogress.org
 
2013-09-18 01:38:40 PM

China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: China White Tea: Brian_of_Nazareth: ole prophet: sprawl15: ole prophet: #4 is completely insane. If some a-hole refuses to make a cake for you because he/she is in fact a a-hole, take your money elsewhere.

If someone refuses to make a cake for you because of your skin color, that's a civil rights violation and can be treated as such.

No it isn't. And it shouldn't be. You posted to public forums, you talk to the media, you mock and ridicule, and take your money elsewhere. A business has the right to refuse service for any reason they see fit.

So you're OK with "No Coloreds" signs?

Cheers.

I wouldn't patronize a business with such a sign, but I'm pretty sure enough  other people wouldn't patronize it, as well, that the problem would rapidly correct itself.  We don't need the law to handle every farking thing someone isn't "okay" with.

Are you a racist or do you really not understand the implications of your position?  I ask only so I know what comment to add when I Farky you in "Twit Grey".

Cheers.

Ah.  The good old false dichotomy - last bastion of the simpleton farker.


I guess both could be an option.  But seriously, I tried to give you a graceful way out of that statement, you chose not to take it.  My question: answered.

Cheers.
 
2013-09-18 01:39:58 PM

spongeboob: Karac: Jehovah's Witnesses: they believe Jesus made the Earth instead of God, in direct contravention to the very first sentence in the Bible

Well I guess these Baptists aren't Christians either then


Like I said, I was merely repeating what I've heard said from the pulpit, usually right before I took out a piece of paper and started putting together a grocery list.  From what was said Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God and Jesus are separate being, not part of a united Trinity, and that the Father Himself played no role in the creation.
 
2013-09-18 01:50:45 PM

China White Tea: Graffito: Before the Civil Rights act (of 1964?) African Americans were routinely denied access to restaurants, hotels, stores, etc.  The Whites Only signs didn't cause those businesses to fail back then.  Are you so sure that it would play out differently today?  Are you willing to risk the lives and well-being of racial minorities on it?

Before the civil rights after of 1964, we didn't have a critical mass of people who actually believed that shiat isn't okay.  There are still some noisy holdouts (especially in the south) but have you  seen how pissed people get whenever one of these stories comes up?  Even the instances that have involved a court have been rendered largely irrelevant long before they made it there, due to the angry fist of the tweeterverse that came down on the heads of the transgressors.

It's really difficult to raise a proper bigot these days, and the ones we have are graciously dying of old age at a pretty good clip.


So... you think anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary because this one thing (discrimination against blacks) has improved tremendously after a civil war, a decade of civil rights protests (which resulted in beatings, intimidation, murders, unjust imprisonment, etc.), legal battles over the Voting Rights Act/Civil Rights Act, and then nearly 40 years of normalization whereupon we arrive at a point where there is still a farkton of discrimination against blacks...

Yeah, I suppose you might have a point if there weren't new waves of discrimination still popping up. I mean, I'm sure no one would love to hang a sign up in their restaurant that said "No Sand-Ni**ers Allowed." And if folks jumped up to protest it, and boycott them, I'm sure there wouldn't be a line of Bible-thumping Dittohead retards wrapped around the building to show their support and stick it to the AY-rabs and libtards.
 
2013-09-18 01:56:25 PM

spongeboob: Well I guess these Baptists aren't Christians either then


Of course not.  There is only one holy Catholic and apostolic church, and the Baptists ain't it.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report