Journal fustakrakich's Journal: To the true liberal free thinkers* 40
They don't seem to have the slightest clue of what they are up against. Refresh the link occasionally and watch the numbers roll. Positively Pavlovian...
Grand total... $842,387 Sick
I guess with all these distractions, the 'economy' must be doing okay.
*could be an illusion, they might not exist
Incredible. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do I smell a business opportunity?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes [gofundme.com]. "Jesus" is the best moneymaker there is.
Re: (Score:1)
Indiana needs a few more mosques. Do a big old pilgrimage during Ramadan. Let's see if they mean what they say about 'freedom'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Illiberals aghast (Score:1)
While you are welcome to call your (or any other) union "marriage", you can not (or should not be able to anyway) force others to humor you.
Wanting to do such forcing is the opposite of being "Liberal" — it is highly Illiberal.
Memories Pizza have committed a thoughtcrime [wikipedia.org] — the monies their are getting are a legal defense fund. Hopefully, the contributing fellow thoughtcriminals will be able to remain anonymous and not face similar persecution [slashdot.org] themselves.
Please, don't hate.
Re: (Score:2)
1. A "legal defense fond"? For what? Nobody has even said anything about taking them to court. This is their "close up the pizza shop and retire" fund.
2. Nobody is forcing others to enter into a same-sex union. Just like pro-choice people aren't forcing the pro-lifes to line up and get abortions. But keep in mind that in many of those states, a black marriage to a white person was not just "not considered a marriage" - it was illegal.
Marriage is defined solely by the law. Religious definitions have not
Re: (Score:2)
Them — not yet. But businesses taking a similar stand in other States have been prosecuted — and found guilty of "discrimination":
Though Memories Pizza may be protected by their State's new law, the protection may prove whimsical if the Federal judge(s) intervene — as happened in Alab [al.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, your opinion in pure, simple bigotry, and as such, irrational, unable to reason with, and simply must be opposed. You know what you can do with your Jim Crow crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Just which of my statements do you classify thus? I stated the following things:
Which of the abo
Re: (Score:1)
You have no 'position'. You are just being a bigot. Your links are bogus. Public accommodation is public accommodation. Discrimination is not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked you, which of the enumerated statements I made in the post you replied to contained "bigotry". The question remains unanswered.
Thank you for confirming my point about owners of Memories Pizza facing a legal threat. As I said, they do need a legal defence fund. Barbara are you reading this?
In a properly free country any and all discrimination by private enterprises ought to be allowed. The fight for
Re: (Score:1)
In a properly free country any and all discrimination by private enterprises ought to be allowed.
Jim Crow... must end
Re: (Score:2)
Along with Jim Parrot.
And I don't mean to imply any relation between the bird's plumage with certain lifestyle, but purely to a propensity, exhibited in this thread recently, to repeat meaningless phrases...
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry...
The fight for freedom needs to start somewhere...
That's hilarious! Then start by abolishing prohibition, and stop allowing religious bigots to write the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibition of alcohol was abolished many years ago. Prohibition of narcotics is unravelling already as well. Do I have your permission to start fighting for freedom to not associate with anybody I don't like — for whatever reason or even without reason? Please?
First Amendment is overrated, I see...
Re: (Score:1)
To the religious bigots the 1st Amendment doesn't even exist. The bourgeois christian is trying to establish himself as the de facto government, in direct violation of the amendment. They exploit the irrational public and must be opposed. 'Argument' is futile.
Violent Illiberals aghast (Score:2)
Whether that's true or not — and you offer no substantiation — it is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the Amendment exists for me and even, presumably, for you.
Thus, preventing any group of people from participating in law-making on the basis of their being religious is a non-starter for me, and should also be for you — if, of course, you are a sincere and straight-thinking human being.
Ah! Those evil bourgeois! I
Re: (Score:2)
To the religious bigots the 1st Amendment doesn't even exist.
Whether that's true or not — and you offer no substantiation — it is irrelevant.
What president this century has acted like the Constitution means anything? Or the current congress, who tried to conduct/sabotage foreign policy (constitutionally that's the president's job) by inviting Netenyahu. And let's face it, the republican majority in congress is full of bible-thumpers.
Re: (Score:1)
Violence no, resistance yes. The bad guys always draw first blood.
Look, dude, I know you're just a shill, or troll, whatever, I don't care. I'm not going to 'argue' anything with you. There's just no point.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant.
Actually, no, inviting a foreign leader to give a speech is perfectly within the Congress' privileges.
If you want to find an example of Congress usurping President's prerogative of Foreign Policy, look a few years back, when Pelosi et al. went to Syria. But none of this is relevant to t
Re: (Score:2)
But none of this is relevant to the attempts to force everyone to agree, that "gay marriage" (a self-contradicting term like "meatless steak") is the same thing as actual marriage.
Back on track. You don't get to define what marriage is or is not. Neither does any religious group. We live in a secular society, with the rule of law, not a theocracy. So, as I said before:
Marriage is defined solely by the law. Religious definitions have nothing to do with it, or we'd have polygamy, forced child marriage, etc. If you don't like the definition, that's entirely your problem. But your insistence on forcing YOUR definition onto others (by either refusing to recognize their situation, or treating them differently) shows a lack of respect. Same as people discriminating against biracial couples.
They can think whatever they want - however public expressions of their bigotry are ill-advised, and acting on them is illegal in many places. I'm not talking just about refusing to provide the same service as to other members of the public, but also the act of publicly promoting hatred, bigotry, and discrimination against them. Words have consequences.
Also, you're employing the same tactics employed by people who want to deny others equal rights - insist that they are not entitled to them loud and often, that they're not "truly equal in all ways", and like any other big lie, most people will not question it because they want to feel superior to somebody.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do got to define it as far my opinion is concerned. And who I create a wedding cake for is — or ought to be — defined by my opinion alone. If you disagree with that opinion of mine, you can take your business elsewhere — no harm done. We both remain free citizens and no coercion of any kind needs to take place.
I don't know, what you are t
Re: (Score:1)
Discrimination is not allowed. Equal rights are equal rights. Take your business and bigotry elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do got to define it as far my opinion is concerned. And who I create a wedding cake for is — or ought to be — defined by my opinion alone. If you disagree with that opinion of mine, you can take your business elsewhere — no harm done. We both remain free citizens and no coercion of any kind needs to take place.
I don't know, what you are talking about — the quote, under which you typed the above phrase, is not from me.
Your opinion is just that - an opinion. It doesn't match the facts or the law, so suck it up or more to Uganda or some other sh*thole that allows discrimination.
The second quote was a repeat of my previous response, to which you still refuse to accept that that's both the law and reality. Then I added a further thought. Try to keep up, mkay? Oh, wait - you're still stuck in the previous millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
Honey, you are increasingly incoherent (discrimination is perfectly allowed everywhere in the world. Hint: "No shoes - no service" is discrimination), and talking to yourself (answering your own posts).
I think, we are done here...
Heh-hey. So, before it became law, you argued, that the law needs to be changed, because it would be just. Not that it is the law, you are arguing, that it is just, because it is the law.
Not very consistent.
Bible-thu
Re: (Score:2)
Still avoiding the fact that, no matter what your opinion, YOU do not get to define what marriage is - the law does. That's why it was important to change the laws, and why we're glad to see our semi-barbaric neighbor to the south taking steps to enter the 21st century wrt civil rights. Tsk, tsk. We are winning, just like we did in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Urug
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: "No shoes - no service" is discrimination)
Well, I guess that's another area we're way ahead of you. You can't ban someone here just because they have no shoes - that would be discrimination based on economic status. Same as women can go around without a top on, same as men, because to do otherwise is discrimination based on sex or gender.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not avoid it — I told you earlier, that this is not a "fact" at all.
Because, no matter, how many times you (and police) tell me, these two men are married, I will just laugh at you.
And if you make my agreeing with you a condition of my remaining free or running a business, congratulations, you've just made disagreeing with you a thoughtcrime. Which is just what I started with...
And, re
Re: (Score:2)
And if you make my agreeing with you a condition of my remaining free or running a business, congratulations, you've just made disagreeing with you a thoughtcrime. Which is just what I started with...
You don't have to agree with it (no thought crime), but you MUST respect it.
You are coming to the hypothetical pizzeria or flowershop and demand to be treated as married/marrying couple. When people refuse, you call police — truly, in the heart of every "Liberal" is a Totalitarian screaming to get out.
So anyone who disagrees with you and wants everyone who is legally married to be treated as such is a totalitarian? File that under "what-a-jerk".
When people refuse to respect your rights, you become complicit if you DON'T stand up for them. So darned right I will get the law involved again if necessary. Don't want that to happen? Then don't be a jerk.
I'm unlikely to respond again.
Promise? You already said that before.
Re: (Score:1)
...try to have a Pride-parade in Gaza-city or Tehran...
Ahhhh, the eternal relativist. If they're not being gassed, it's all good. Bleh, sounds like your cup of tea. Maybe you should move there, bigots of the world unite!
Re: (Score:2)
Until such time as someone with standing makes a complaint, there is no threat of legal action. Have they, in fact, refused service to a gay couple? Here's what actually happened:
"If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," owner Crystal O'Connor told ABC 57 News on Tuesday.
In other words, it's a purely hypothetical situation, one that has never in fact happened, and they are under NO legal threat, since they haven't actually done so, so nobody has standing to sue.
So, please get your FACTS straight, before claiming that they are under a legal threat. Show at least one incident where they have refus
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't be naive — or take me for a naive one. How long after they reopen will it take for a determined gay couple to do exactly that — come over and ask for a special wedding pizza — with reporters and TV-cameras in tow?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't be naive — or take me for a naive one. How long after they reopen will it take for a determined gay couple to do exactly that — come over and ask for a special wedding pizza — with reporters and TV-cameras in tow?
It will never happen. It's you who's both out of date and attempting to be naive. They've already said that with the $850k they've raised, they'll never have to work again, and are retiring. So, to all the fools who believed they ware raising funds for a legal defense - suckers!!!
Re: (Score:1)
You just don't get it. LGBTt couples are entitled to the exact same rights and privileges as anybody else, and that includes a marriage contract. Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant. There is nothing to 'argue'. If you are against equal rights, then you are a bigot, plain and simple. You only confirm your own irrationality, which is the subject of the JE. We are letting irrational, confrontational bigots make policy.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Couples — of either sex — aren't entitled to anything.
Individuals — of either sex — can marry one individual of the opposite sex, upon obtaining a marriage license.
Could you outline the logical chain, that lead you to that conclusion? Why? That's certainly not the definition of the word [princeton.edu]. Be sure, to leav
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, You just linked to the exact definition I am speaking of. Thank you!
I only 'denounce' argument against irrational people for the waste of time that it is. It is purely masturbation. There is no rational 'argument' for bigotry. So, I won't bother.
False. Couples — of either sex — aren't entitled to anything.
Then what I said isn't false. I only said that people are entitled to the same thing. If it's nothing then it's nothing, but it remains equal. So, if gays can't get a marriage 'license' th
Re: (Score:2)
Barbara Hudson lied, when pretending, I — or anyone else — is afraid or have ever expressed fear of being forced into entering a same-sex union.
Talk about purposefully taking my point completely out of context and then claiming something I never said. Here's my text: "Nobody is forcing others to enter into a same-sex union. Just like pro-choice people aren't forcing the pro-lifes to line up and get abortions. But keep in mind that in many of those states, a black marriage to a white person was not just "not considered a marriage" - it was illegal. Marriage is defined solely by the law. Religious definitions have nothing to do with it, or we'd have
Re: (Score:1)
Don't waste your time with this philosophical crap. This is exactly what the JE is about. Reason and logic are off the table. Plain old resistance is all that can and must be done.