If Conservatives Want To Change America, We Need To Embrace Boycotts

Target Rejected

If Conservatives Want To Change America, We Need To Embrace Boycotts

John Hawkins

Liberals have already co-opted Hollywood and our education system; so it’s no secret that the deck is stacked against conservatives in America. However, liberals have also started to pull corporate America to the Left as well. The world’s most powerful corporations are standing against mom and pop Christian bakeries that don’t want to participate in gay weddings and threatening states that don’t want grown men using the bathroom with little girls. While corporations tend to favor whichever politician is in power, they are much more likely to give money to overtly liberal groups than conservative ones. Even ESPN, the all sports network, has a liberal bent. Politically, you can say anything if it’s to the left of center, but Curt Schilling was fired for having a conservative point of view.

This may seem puzzling to a lot of people. After all, don’t corporations want lower tax rates, less regulations and business- friendly politicians in charge of the country? They do, but you have to keep in mind that Republicans are cheap dates. We don’t stop trying to cut the corporate tax rate or pushing to get rid of ridiculous regulations even in cycles when businesses give heavily to Democrats. So in essence, many corporations undoubtedly believe giving money to Democrats is a win/win. The Democrats may slam corporations at every opportunity, but they can be bought off while the Republicans will stay friendly no matter what the corporations do. All this leads to most corporations being very mercenary about which politicians they fund.

However, the incentives are different once you get outside of overt political giving because corporations are very sensitive to anything that may tarnish their reputation or hurt their sales.

So, who’s easily offended by things corporations do? Liberals.

Who’s going to protest if they don’t like a group a corporation is giving money? Liberals.

Who’s going to boycott if a corporation does something they don’t like? Liberals.

Meanwhile, you can make fun of Christ and Christians will laugh it off. Conservatives will tolerate the most vicious smears from newspapers and TV shows. Republicans don’t particularly like it when Hollywood portrays them as stupid, evil and cruel, but other than an odd complaint here or there, for the most part we aren’t willing to do anything about it.

That’s why corporations bend over backwards to make liberals happy while they’re indifferent to offending Christians. The squeaky wheel gets the grease while those who suffer in silence are ignored.

Do you want to know how big of a difference a small group of people can make? Well, Rush Limbaugh was hit by a boycott and although Rush has done fine overall, I’ve been told by friends in the industry that talk radio overall took a big hit in the quality of its advertisers. According to Rush, there were actually very few people involved.

Only 10 Twitter users account for almost 70% of all StopRush tweets to advertisers, amplified by illicit software. In addition, almost every communication from a StopRush activist originates from outside the State of the advertiser. Thus, these activists are not and never would have been customers… their only role is to harass small businesses in an attempt to interfere with their operations, as long as they are advertising with Rush.

“A small number of politically motivated out-of-state activists are distributing target lists indiscriminately, and annoying small businesses until they give up the advertising deals that help them grow, or risk being unable to conduct business at all. It’s not even activism… it’s blackmail,” according to Brian Glicklich, Rush Limbaugh Show spokesperson.

How does this small group of people make themselves look so much bigger than they actually are? Stop Rush has deployed custom automated tweeting software, in violation of Twitter’s rules, that lets its activists send tweets at a rate far faster than any unassisted person could do manually. They send barrages of thousands of messages through this software until advertisers are bullied and harassed into cancellation.

When conservatives make lame excuses for ceding the field to people like this, we’re doing our part to help liberals turn corporate America to the Left. As Edward Burke supposedly said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Is it smart for conservatives to continue to do nothing? Should we be sorry that a successful conservative boycott of A&E got the Duck Dynasty stars back on the air after they were fired for being too overtly Christian? Should we be upset that Target’s stock has gone down after the American Family Association managed to convince a million people to pledge to boycott the company over its policy of allowing men to use the bathroom with little girls? I’m not sorry it did; in fact I’ll publicly pledge not to ever shop at Target again unless it changes its bathroom policy right now. After Apple went after states that tried to protect Christians who refused to participate in gay weddings, I retaliated by getting conservatives together to publicly demand that the company pull out of countries that torture their gay citizens — like Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Did it change Apple’s policy? No, but it did at least get some bad publicity out of it.

More than 30 years ago, the conservative Moral Majority was able to mount successful boycotts. Today, liberals are following in its shoes while too many conservatives offer up nothing but excuses for why they won’t do the same. W.B. Yeats was not wrong when he said that, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” That will be written on our nation’s tombstone unless conservatives stop waiting for a politician on a white horse to save us and start collectively changing our culture via tools like boycotts

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/04/30/if-conservatives-want-to-change-america-we-need-to-embrace-boycotts-n2155925

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Uncensored News
  • Ferd

    How does this small group of people make themselves look so much bigger than they actually are?

    Liberal protests consist of burning a business to the ground or suing them out of business.
    With the full support of the government. ;-(

    • Status Quo

      Ferd my friend, your extracting of this exact quote… is moving this morning to find and post(if it can be done) a very poignant video(if I can find it) of a woman ranting verbally up and down a United Airlines counter person for immediately not arranging a flight and following prescribed rules for a 35 Dollar change charge for her demands… just a few weeks ago. Regardless if I can make the full demonstration(you try too)… the most poignant part is when she yells like shrillhillary… “that’s how we get what WE want!!!!”

    • Status Quo
      • Ferd

        Damn..what a whack-a-doodle!

        • Status Quo

          Any guess what kind of whack?

          • Ferd

            Well…none that I would share publicly. 😉

          • Status Quo

            ===> ;-}

    • Because we let them do that. We do not stand up and stop their attacks. We allow them to destroy our laws and society by our weakness in standing up against the social liberals.

      • glenbo

        Please explain what these “attacks” are.We do not stand up and stop their attacks.”<
        Please explain what these "attacks" are.

        • kathyh777

          Problem is LGBT are bullies. They are hurting people. They are intolerant and will destroy good peoples lives for disagreeing with them

          • glenbo

            >”Problem is LGBT are bullies. They are hurting people. They are intolerant and will destroy good peoples lives for disagreeing with them”<
            My question was not directed at you.
            However, I will address your intrusion.
            Bull $hit.
            Your response is a total lie. It is nothing but un-documentable hype created by the Family Research Council.

          • You just proved her point

          • glenbo

            >”You just proved her point”<
            Sorry, you are incorrect.
            Disagreeing with anti-gay discriminatory bigotry isn't bullying.
            It is resistance to bullying.
            Holding people accountable for statements they make isn't bullying.
            Defending LGBT rights by pointing out absurd claims and assertions isn't bullying.
            You fail at making yourself the victim when you are the aggressor.

          • No I am correct, you are an intolerant Pric%

          • glenbo

            >”pauljones6482 “”No I am correct, you are an intolerant Pric%”<

            Sir, by virtue of the fact you have resorted to personal attacks
            and insults demonstrates that you are intellectually bankrupt in this debate.

            You therefore, by these immature attacks concede to defeat
            in this debate.

            But thanks for playing!

          • You child abusers will be stopped

          • glenbo

            And there it is!
            Proof religious persecution is messed up!
            You are a sociopath if this image makes you feel good.

          • There what is. That is a terrorist throwing someone off the roof

          • Here you are attacking people because of their religious beliefs, well do not get upset when we attack you back

          • Go eff yourself

          • glenbo

            pauljones6482 said:
            >”Go eff yourself”<
            I always suspected you were a "Christian."
            Now I'm convinced.
            And people wonder why religion is being pushed deeper into a corner.
            This king of rhetoric is yet just another reason why.
            You wallow in hate.
            People like you are proof LGBT NEED protections.
            Well done! Keep up the good work!

          • Nope, not a Christian. But haters like you will be stopped

          • KNH777

            Why do you hate Christians

          • glenbo

            >”Why do you hate Christians”<

            I don’t “hate Christians.”

            If your foolish presumption is true, then I would hate my
            Mom, brother, my cousin, many of my friends and my best clients and several of my employees.

            What I hate is bigots and bigotry. And LGBT hate is strictly
            religion based and propagated almost entirely by Christians and for no good reason.

            …I'm not saying that ALL Christians are judgmental intolerant hateful misinformed bigots…
            just that most judgmental intolerant hateful misinformed bigots are almost always Christians.

            Your unfounded prejudice does not bode well for Christianity.

          • KNH777

            Only the ones that believe differently than you. So if we agreed with you, then we can have religious freedom?

          • glenbo

            >”Only the ones that believe
            differently than you. So if we agreed with you, then we can have religious freedom?”<

            What you “believe” is none of my
            business.

            How you BEHAVE towards others IS my
            business.

            If your so-called “religious freedom” requires
            you to deny others freedom and you ACT on it, I have a problem with you.

            Think, feel, and believe what you wish.

            When you BEHAVE badly for no good
            reason towards others, you cross a line.

            If your religion requires you to treat others with discrimination and disdain, you have one or two problems:

            1) Your religion is corrupt.

            2) Your interpretation of your religion
            has been corrupted.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnocentrism

          • Sisyphus

            “How you BEHAVE towards others IS my business.”
            Wrong.

          • Yet you make it you business to know what they believe, and then you seek to use government force to silence them for their beliefs

            Christians are not the ones denying people their freedom, that is you people on the left doing that, that is why we oppose you

            The only one behaving badly towards others here, is you

            Christians are not treating others with disdain or discrimination, so again you are lying

            You are in no position to say one’s religion is corrupt, when your religion of secular humanism encourages males to suck other males penises after they have been raping your rear, now that is corrupt behavior

          • How I behave is none of your business, that you think that you need to control by behavior is why I oppose idiots like you

          • But yet you attack them

          • glenbo

            >”But yet you attack them”<

            Illogical.

            Defending LGBT rights against attack
            isn’t an attack.

            Christians are the aggressors crying
            victim.

            Backwards reasoning.

            Fail.

            Sir, I am dismissing you due to your
            childish insults and personal attacks.

            You conceded to defeat long ago.

          • No not illogical, what is illogical is your hatred of the Christians.

            Christians are not the aggressors here, you are the aggressor. I see no Christian attacking you.

            So try again

          • LOL, you are the one who is losing here

          • Sisyphus

            So you admit that there is a demand of special ‘rights’.

          • They are the most intolerant close minded people I have ever seen

          • glenbo
          • LOL, Intolerant little Pric$ is what you are

          • glenbo

            >”Problem is LGBT are bullies.”” They are hurting people. They are intolerant and will
            destroy good peoples lives for disagreeing with them”<

            OH MY GAWD!!!

            Such lies!

            What is the logic in doing so? Why would LGBT people want to
            “destroy people’s lives?”

            Can you give me one rational reason why ALL LGBT people want to do this ONLY to Christians?

            Do you work for the Family Research Council? You should.

            So-called “Christians” who think they can ignore the law
            hurt themselves. It’s one thing to “disagree.”

            That’s not what gets so-called phony “Christians” in
            trouble.
            It’s their behavior. Don’t want your life and business hurt?
            Follow the laws.

            How smart is that?

            Belief in a non-existent imaginary god doesn’t give anyone a
            free pass to ignore anti-discrimination laws.
            If I don’t “belief” black people should be served by my
            business, do I have the right to refuse them?
            Were all black people in the 50’s “bullies” simply because
            they wanted equal treatment?
            You can’t get any more ridiculous with your false witness
            bearing statements.

          • People like you are the problem

          • Sisyphus

            Still no proof of the assertion.

          • glenbo

            >”Still no proof of the assertion.

            What assertion specifically?

          • You claim that homosexuals are being attacked.

          • glenbo

            >”You claim that homosexuals
            are being attacked.”<

            That is correct.

            Denying gays the right to marriage by
            creating constitutional amendments is a direct and deliberate attack of gays, as they serve no other purpose.

            But sir, you are dismissed since you have conceded to defeat in this debate by personally attacking me and insulting me. We are done.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            An interesting series of posts but I’m not getting much sense of any understanding from you regarding the precise objections of ‘strict’ Christians on this issue. Or for that matter, of ‘strict’ Muslims too, and don’t doubt that sooner or later, equivalent cases involving Muslim business owners will arise. Whereupon any support you get from ideological left ‘equal rights’ enforcers is likely to vanish like the morning dew.

            Instead then of dividing your time fairy evenly between

            1) asserting blankly your own position, and

            2) relying on semantics to deny people are being ”forced” to provide goods and/or services they would prefer not to furnish for ‘whatever’ reason

            would you perhaps care to explain briefly your own understanding of what ‘those’ people’s difficulty in doing so may actually be? Hopefully, that could lead to a more constructive exploration of the issue in general, don’t you think?

            Perhaps with reference to this question -which may suggest to you some possible nuance may attach to their perspective..

            Do you think there’s any distinction that could be made between a ‘devout’ owner of, say, a bakery’s viewpoint re;

            A) selling a local gay customer a wholemeal loaf twice weekly when the guy pops into the shop on his way home from work?

            B) accepting a one-off commission to furnish him with a suitably decorated wedding cake for his same sex marriage celebration party?

            Would the baker be justified in refusing service in

            -scenario A? / -scenario B? / -both? / -neither?

          • glenbo

            >” don’t doubt that sooner or later, equivalent cases
            involving Muslim business owners will arise.”” I’m not getting much sense of any understanding from
            you regarding the precise objections of ‘strict’ Christians on this issue.”” asserting blankly your own position”” being ”forced” to provide goods and/or services”” ‘those’ people’s difficulty in doing so may actually
            be?””Would the baker be justified in refusing service in
            scenario A)”” Would the baker be justified in refusing service in
            scenario B)”<

            Refer to my response to A).

            My answer to this question is that there is no justification
            in practicing discrimination especially if the reasons for doing so are strictly imaginary.

            In conclusion:

            If a bigoted wedding cake maker hates gays so much that
            he/she cannot bring him/herself to treat them civilly, he/she is free to get out of the wedding business. Simple as that. There should be no special treatment or special rights available for anyone just because they believe in a non-existent imaginary god.

            There is no rational reason to reject gay people other than pure hatred of them. She deserved her punishment.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            When you tell a customer “I will not serve you because you are one of them.” You cross a line and you deserved to be held accountable if you break any laws by crossing this line.

            Barronelle refused to sell the gay guy a cake because he is “one of those people.” She did this only because he belongs to a class of people.

            OK, firstly, Barronelle Stutzman is a florist, not a baker so what she refused to provide were flowers, not cake.

            Secondly, this was not done gratuitously because the customers were gay (“one of those people.”). As Wiki and other sources make plain ”She had been servicing the couple for several years,”

            The reason service was refused them in THAT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE, was that the flowers were ordered explicitly to be used as floral decorations at a same sex wedding.

            The case is, in fact analogous to the hypothetical ‘bakery’ one I advanced above. You cite this specific case in response to the question on scenario A. Incorrectly as it happens as Stutzman DID satisfy the conditions pertaining to that by providing ”routine” service on an entirely equal basis.

            In a Scenario B situation, re which you merely repeat the argument, she did refuse service Yet it seems plain that had, in another instance, a straight couple in business together as professional wedding party organisers dealing with caterers, vintners, venue rental, decorations, provision of staff, insurance, etc ordered flowers for a same-sex wedding celebration, they’d have been refused too. Had it been an opposite-sex celebration, their order would have been accepted.

            Indeed, all the indications are that, In brief, it was not the customer but the question of being complicit in facilitating a ceremony repugnant to the teachings of her faith, that prompted Stutzman’s refusal to tender. Iow, she was not declining to serve a person; she was declining to serve a purpose.

            That’s clearly not only a discrimination issue. It’s also an ”extent of engagement” one,and the question must be to what degree should vendors be entitled to refuse service to customers whose stated intention is to use the goods requested for purposes that conflict with the vendor’s moral values/perspectives. For example, should a gunshop owner be permitted to refuse to sell ammunition to a prospective customer who informs him that he intends to commit suicide? How about one who’s opposed to bloodsports and has spent his entire career promoting skeet shooting, who’s confronted by a customer wishing to buy precisely the same shotgun cartridges but to use on real pigeons? Returning to the notion of ”irrational faiths” what about a ‘devoutly’ Marxist printing business owner who declines to turn out 5,000 promotional flyers for a local Teaparty fundraising event? Or a Conservative one refusing to do the same for a Communist election candidate?

            In short, does the right to absolute equality of access in every last respect stop at any point generally or is it to be enforced absolutely only in respect of particular designated groups?? Oh, and how about relevance of the degree of loss of amenity involved?

            Finally, wrt

            The “freedom of conscience” laws the religious right is
            pushing would allow Muslims to do atrocious things if we have these laws in conjunction with the 1st Amendment and practicing American Muslim citizens.

            Provide a plausible example of how in theory that could be so. Unless, of course it’s one contrived so tortuously as to suggest possible validation of FGM or Honour Killing, in which case don’t waste my time.

          • I do not think he will be able to refute this, well said

          • SquirePraggerstope

            He’s no intention of doing so. His responses to you indicate he’s only here to troll and bluster. I just thought I’d present him with an opportunity to explain himself more rationally. I’m not surprised he avoided taking it. His agenda is the usual SJW one.

            ”I believe this is unquestionably correct in every last way, so everyone else must conform to it totally, because we’ll hunt the objectors out and pro-actively rub their noses in our beliefs until they give in. While anyone who doesn’t will be badgered, hounded, attacked, dragged through the courts, bankrupted and ultimately forced out of business while I and my mob assume a fatuous moral posture and say we’re protecting vulnerable people’s rights”

            What else has the doctrinaire p.c. left’s agenda ever been but that?

          • So very true, then they get upset when we fight back.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Yep. Of course. They’re always absolutely right and anyone disagreeing with them must therefore be evil; totally evil with no mitigating attributes whatsoever.

            I’ve said this before on US fora but it becomes more and more plain the more I read that to most Americans the really hard end of the p.c. activist left are still a bit of a puzzle. They’ve always been there of course but their power and influence and opportunity to impose their repulsive ideology on large numbers of ordinary people in their own neighbourhoods and businesses and schools and workplaces has only really grown enormously since Obama slithered into office. Countering the scumbags effectively is not so much a matter of trying to demonstrate to THEM that there’s merit in your case because doing so is impossible by definition. EVERYTHING you write must be directed at third parties -in general, the great mass of very largely apathetic public opinion. Why? Because that’s precisely what the left do, all the time and on every last issue.

            For example, why do you think the left are now deliberately targeting traditional Christian communities and individuals, and doing so in this particular way?

          • Now watch him blow some hot air

          • What you fail to realize is that the florist in question that you used above, was not refusing service to a person regardless of who they were, but she was refusing to participate in something in which she finds offensive to her beliefs.

            Has nothing to do with Bigotry, in fact it was the gay couple who can be seen to be the bigots, because they attacked the florist because of her beliefs, getting the power of the state to force this person to act against her beliefs. This is why your side is wrong, and this is why you are pushing us to oppose you even more

          • Yet you cannot show any proof

          • Creating Constitutional Amendments is the right of a free people. This is not an attack on gay people

            You are the one who is dismissed

          • You have yet to prove that, and we have proof positive the likes of you are attacking Christians for no reason

          • glenbo

            >” You have yet to prove that,”<
            Prove what?
            That constitutional amendments are aimed at blocking gay rights?
            It is self-evident, you f*cking moron.

          • There are no such thing as gay rights, so they cannot be blocked
            Insults will get you no where, you just proved that you lost

          • So you still cannot prove what you have alleged

          • LOL, you have nothing bigot

        • Using the courts to undo the will of the people, using the courts to force your beliefs on America. The constant harassment towards anything Christian. The throwing of Christians in Jail, and forcing them to serve homosexuals, and fining them if they do not

          • glenbo

            >” Using the courts to undo the will of the people”” using the courts to force your beliefs on America.”” The constant harassment towards anything Christian.”” The throwing of Christians in Jail”” forcing them to serve homosexuals”” fining them if they do not”<

            The fines were for violating anti-discrimination laws. Any
            anti-gay so-called phony “Christian” that hates gay people so much that they cannot bring them self to treat them with kindness, respect and decency is free
            to find another line of work. Being fined for breaking the law is not an “attack.”

            By this absurd logic, I can say the police “attacked” me
            because I don’t believe in wearing my seat belt and ticketed me. Being held accountable for breaking the law is not an “attack. Absurd.
            Strike 6.

            You failed to justify your claim. And you failed quite
            pitifully at your attempt to create “victims” out of law breaking aggressors.

            Next question:

            What harm would have befallen any of these “attack” victims
            had they simply obeyed the law and sold the gay customer the damn cake?
            Would they be fined? Arrested? Boycotted? Sued? Driven out of business? Struck by lightning?

          • Actually it is an attack on the people . There are no deliberate attacks on gay aholes
            There was no ballot system attacking the gays, you are a liar
            Those who engage in homosexual acts want special rights

            So it seems you are the problem here, maybe you should move out of the country

          • glenbo

            You are deluded if you believe that there are “no deliberate attacks” on LGBT people.
            Cue cuckoo-clock sound byte.

          • Shut up liar. We will no longer put up with your BS

          • Sisyphus

            Prove the assertion.

          • glenbo

            >”Prove the assertion.”<

            What assertion?

          • You claim that there deliberate attacks against the Homosexuals.

            We can prove the attacks against the Christians, like forcing the Bakers to bake cakes for a gay wedding, forcing the Photographer, fining the bakery, etc. Where do you see the same against homosexual businesses

          • glenbo

            >” We can prove the attacks against the Christians, like
            forcing the Bakers to bake cakes for a gay wedding, forcing the Photographer”” fining the bakery”” Where do you see the same against homosexual
            businesses”<

            I never claimed that homosexual businesses were attacked,
            just LGBT PEOPLE.

            But since you brought it up:

            http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/22/anti-gay-cake/22151231/

            I am unsure if the bakery owner is gay, however.

          • So why are you lying, What about the Baker in Oregon who was fined and forced t bake a cake for homosexuals, Or the Bed and Breakfast owners up in NY state Your lies are not even amusing. Face it this is why we are opposing people like you

            There was no reason to fine the baker. And your argument (lack of here) is why we oppose people like you, and it is your actions that are driving us to using force against you

            No homosexuals have been attacked yet, each claim your side throws out was proven to be self inflicted attacks to try to say they were being attacked. So again you fail

            So try again loser

          • KNH777

            Here is a likely scenerio, either we as a people will push all this back, hug our children harder, and watch their exposure an influences, and value religious freedom, since we now know taking it for granite was truely a mistake.

            Or we are too late to push back, will try to atlesst save our own children and grandchildren from this dark culture to be light in darkness. And its just a short time till Jesus comes and judges the world and calls His people to himself.
            And I wont be surprised if the latter scenario is met with persecution we mever thought we would see here in America.
            Because folks, we are fighting Sodom and Gomorah now, and it probably isnt going to have a happy ending.

          • glenbo

            >”we are fighting Sodom and Gomorah now”<

            Your admiration of a god who condones slavery and ordered the murder of children and babies who got the world wrong twice is no excuse.

          • KNH777

            So are you angry with God

          • glenbo

            >”So are you
            angry with God”<

            Yes. And I am "angry at God" for the exact same reason you are “angry” with Santa Claus.

            However, if there actually was a Santa Claus and instead of giving naughty children a lump of coal in their stockings, he drowned them, I would not worship him.

            Why anyone would worship an entity that murders children is beyond reason.
            But you obviously don’t reason. You just follow and obey mindlessly.

            Pitiful.

          • You really cannot help yourself, and you wonder why you get attacked

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Why anyone would worship an entity that murders children is beyond reason

            I confess I’m not familiar with that specific episode. Care to elucidate?

          • glenbo

            >”I confess I’m not familiar with that specific episode.
            Care to elucidate?”<

            My dear sir, due to the relentless psychotic and sociopathic
            harassment and bullying I have received here, this will likely be my last post. And I have the feeling I am going to regret responding to you.

            I trust you are a Christian and you have a bible.

            All you need to do is read your bible…all of it.

            Any further questions?

          • SquirePraggerstope

            I trust you are a Christian and you have a bible.

            I’m an atheist. I do have a family bible I inherited but oddly enough, can’t seem to find ”God murders some children” anywhere in the index. So as it’s a biggish book and you’re obviously a Christian yourself, of some sort at least given your apparently encyclopedic knowledge of scripture, I thought I’d save time by asking you to direct me to the relevant text.

            Unless you can’t find it either, of course.

            this will likely be my last post.

            Oh, what a shame. And I was so looking forward to your no doubt considered, coherent and open-minded response to my second post in our opening conversation too.

          • glenbo

            >” and you’re obviously a Christian yourself””I thought I’d save time by asking you to direct me to the relevant text.”>this will likely be my last post.<”Oh, what a shame. And I was so looking forward to your
            no doubt considered, coherent and open-minded response to my second post in our opening conversation too.”<

            I too look forward to intellectual conversation as long as
            there are no personal attacks, insults, harassment and bullying. So long as everyone remains serious, honest, sincere and civil, I am willing to discuss anything.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            No problem. I have done extensive research for my book not yet published.

            Ah, a timeless masterpiece of theological insight and sophistication, no doubt.

            Noah’s Great Flood had to have drowned thousands of innocent children, infants and pregnant women thusly making God filicidal and pro-abortion.

            …or alternatively… well, never mind. I suppose ”The Flood” considered first and foremost as celebration of gratuitous divine infanticide is an ‘original’ perspective although somehow I doubt Duns Scotus, Martin Luther or even Malcolm Muggeridge will be lying too uneasily in their graves for fear of being eclipsed.

            Got a publisher, have you? If not, don’t bet the house on it.

            I too look forward to intellectual conversation as long as there are no personal attacks, insults, harassment and bullying. So long as everyone remains serious, honest, sincere and civil, I am willing to discuss anything.

            That deserves framing. Well, Glen, you may not be a Christian but let no one say you lack .. er… ‘piety’.

          • glenbo

            >”Got a publisher, have you? If not, don’t bet the house on it.””Ah, a timeless masterpiece of theological insight and sophistication, no doubt.”<

            How interesting you continue to take interest in my writings.

            I will take this…despite the obvious sarcasm… as positive encouragement.

            Thank you.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            The reactions on this very blog are integral for my research.

            Great! Then you and I are helping each other in much the same way. I’m fascinated by the p.c. ‘new’ left cult -albeit mainly as it has manifested itself in the UK. However, here in Britain we’ve now got it firmly on the back foot and are slowly beginning to deconstruct the harm it’s done. Something that despite being a positive development in itself, unfortunately also means research on the phenomenon’s earlier phase when it was still growing must of necessity be purely historic in nature.

            Yet the US is at an earlier stage in the phenomenon’s course and the new left is still making some gains there. Real time engagement with cult adherents in what they continue to perceive currently to be a growing force, and also within another Anglophone society with a significant degree of cultural consonance with Britain’s own, thus remains possible for now. It’s like taking a trip back in time and is yielding some fascinating insights.

          • LOL, now this is amusing
            You have yet to prove there have been attacks against homosexuals

          • SoulSurvivor

            ” vicious attacks on innocent, hardworking, taxpaying, honest LGBT people ”

            Is that you Obama, the Destroyer of all that is good ??

          • Why are you so concerned with the homosexual lifestyle choice then. You seem to take pleasure in attacking Christians.

            Seems your research has not been that good, the fact that you use a hate site to push your agenda is all we need to know about you

            Maybe you should ditch the hate and bigotry you have shown here

          • Excellent

          • One suggestion: perhaps you would have more reasoned debate with people if you yourself projected more reasonable tone in your own writings?

            I get that in person, if your attitude is as acidic as possible, it can prevent you from “losing” an argument simply because people don’t want to talk to you. But that doesn’t work on the Internet…

          • glenbo

            >”you would have more reasoned debate with people if you yourself projected more reasonable tone in your own writings?”<

            Not on LGBT subjects. Go through my posting history on my profile and you will see the resistance I am met with is consistent and identical to what I have encountered
            here. However I absolutely agree with you. I admit my frustration leads to extreme language, but you must understand that my posts are truthful, carefully researched and cogent.

            If you take the time to read some of the hateful illogical rhetoric I am responding to, you will see clearly how the frustration can manifest when I futilely try to rationalize with irrational people who deliberately avoid my simple honest
            questions and resort to distractive assertions, personal attacks and insults in order to “defend” what is impossible to defend. And those are some of the more reasonable posters I encounter in my defense of LGBT rights and freedoms…which is all I am doing. If one cannot defend their attacks on LGBT people, one cannot cry victim when one is held accountable for doing so.

            I’m sorry people don’t like hearing my message, but when one abuses others one must be held accountable. All I do is point that out. Just because one may not like hearing it, it doesn’t absolve one of their bad behavior, and it doesn't make me an unreasonable person for objecting to negative behavior. If people don’t like being labeled a bigot, they ought not behave like one.

            I am often accused of “hating Christians” when that is simply not the case. However, in my research I have documented a plethora of appalling, needless, unfounded and untrue hateful rhetoric…for no sound reason… being directed at honest hard working law abiding taxpaying LGBT people almost exclusively by so-called “Christians” who claim to be following their faith when in fact they are not.

            My simple question is “Why?” The response is almost always incomprehensible irrational gobbledygook taped to rocks thrown at me. How revealing!

          • So you could not answer his question, is that why you regret that you responded to anyone here. You were unable to respond to anyone here in a civil way.

            So try t answer at least this one question

          • I think he is angry with himself for doing what he does

          • Your ignorance on the subject is telling. Tell you what, why don’t you take your hate somewhere else, or stop complaining when we attack you back

          • Agree

        • It is quite obvious. The lefts attack against Christians and moral people

    • KNHAV777

      We need a million strategic truth bomb posters

      Millennial look so big because they take presence by lie bomb posters and also are given liberal media presence. They removed everyone’s faces and rights by labels, conservatives even the mildest, are labeled Religious Establishment – Moral standards of any kind again labeled Religious Establishment.

      I really think people are generally unaware of the depth of LBGT agenda
      I literally just woke up like in the last month or so, I had no picture of reality either.

      It was superficial fairness, is the best way to describe it. Most conservatives think in reasonable fair terms, rights of all considered, and presence of all respected in society, and beliefs of all respected; But LGBT is no where near fair, and only interested in their rights and to take over all of society!!

      While debating Millennials on general issues, the light went on. And the selfish unfairness is amazing, SOCIETY TAKEOVER!
      Example:
      If you are not gay, would you pick up a book like this for a bedtime story with your 5 year old? I made this up example book:
      *** John is a Police Officer and Bill drives the school bus in the morning. The rest of the day Bill is a busy dad of 2 little boys.

      Bill takes the boys to the grocery store where Miss Linda
      and Miss Patty work in the check out lines. They live next door and they
      are Mary’s mommies.

      Time to hurry home to make dinner! When John comes home they enjoy dinner on the deck and play baseball in the yard. **
      This is starting, and will be as normal as see spot run soon! We have to take back our schools. Their agenda is for kids to see both as equally natural and fun beautiful family lives. They will make it look like 50/50 in the next generation’s eyes. This is the end game!

      They will be allowed Value Content Education through discrimination laws, and will be recruiting in schools everywhere for 8 hours per day 9 months per year! And its now legal because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling of the supreme ct last year! This will be every where from 1st grade curriculum to Sesame St, and Disney will soon follow with prince and prince movies made popular by media and Millennials!

      I’m tolerant, I like gay people but I would not read this as a bedtime story!

      We need to ACT and do something about it! We can’t sit by and let it happen.

      • glenbo

        >”I’m tolerant, I like gay people”<
        So you support their right to marry?

        • kathyh777

          I support a balance of live and let live.

          Something millennials seem to know nothing about.

          From my experience, the activists and supporters, are the rudest most selfish people I ever heard speak.

          Im shocked they cant even see others.

          We taught you all the golden rule, Im not sure, how or why your generation is so cruel.

          You guys complain about bullying, but you all hide behind keys and bully even your own. As seen on how the internet ruined my life.

          The mean things people say to those victims, ruining their lives, are said by millennials,
          Not baby boomers!

          So listen to a few of those shows, look in the mirror, and realize how selfish and cruel your generation is accurately defined as, and then decide if that is who you are personally!

          The baker is your mother, your grandmother, the special Aunt that once made sure you didnt feel left out, or an older neighbor that kept a watchful eye out for you and your friends. Or she is that nice lady at the store that winked at you when caught shoplifting, and said “hey some advise next time you wont be so lucky!”

          • glenbo

            >”I support a balance of live and let live.”<
            You didn't answer my question:
            Do you support the rights of gays to marry?
            This is a simple yes or no question.

          • Time for people to use force against your side

          • glenbo

            >”Time for people to use force against your side”<
            This has already been done by the religious right in the form of amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.
            This is been done by RFRA laws.
            You have no rational reason to treat LGBT people like this.

          • Liar

          • KNH777

            The problem isnt gov giving gays rights to form life partnerships w similar legal benefits. The problem is what has occurred. Its a force against freedom. Discrimination laws will hold everyone in society hostage, making all enslaved to the extremes of activists! And the next generation is going to face extreme issues in their lives. These selfish activist sacrifice every child, who all were born of sperm and egg, kids arent theirs, they are selfish and dont care about the effects on them! As well as a complete disregard for religious freedom!

            glenbo obviously doesn’t understand balance of rights.

            Also many like glenbo do not understand they are simply being used to take away others rights, and remove Christianity from society, and also in the process they are loosing yheir rights too. It won’t matter to them till someday whe tbey realize the rights they didnt fight to protect were theirs too!

        • No such right

          • glenbo

            >”No such right”<
            That's a no.
            This means you are intolerant and do not like gay people.
            This makes you a bigot by the very definition of the word.

          • No such right

          • There is no such right, so why would I support something that does not exist
            I am not intolerant of gay people, I am intolerant of gay people forcing their beliefs on society that has seen no reason to accept what they do as being normal

            The only bigot here is you

        • KNH777

          Yes but not with protections of discrimination laws.
          Rights and freedoms for others also have to be considered.
          By exception for them only, for legal benefits like joint ownership, and survivorship benefits etc., but not forced on all.

          • glenbo

            >”Yes but not with protections of discrimination laws.

            Rights and freedoms for others also have to be considered. “”but not forced on all.”<

            Nobody has been “forced” to do anything. This is nonsense.

          • Liar, keep up your hate and see what happens

          • KNH777

            You already did and do. And you dont see Christians damaging them, they tend not to return evil for evil.
            But now we have to fight for religious freedom and the lives and futures of our children and grandchildren.
            So we may not defend ourselves. But will defend religious freedom and children!

          • glenbo

            >” You already did and do.”<

            False.

            Again, you are casting judgment with no knowledge of the
            character of others.
            This makes religious bigotry dangerous.
            You are no better than a terrorist.

            My 2 best clients are devout Christians, and I regularly do
            work for a church.
            Therefore, I am better as an atheist than you are as a
            Christian.

            Besides, you didn’t answer my question…

            Would you accept an atheist business owner refusing service
            to a Christian?

            Yes or no?

          • KNH777

            It isnt personal, and nothing to do with a gay person, it has to do with beliefs about sexuality.

          • glenbo

            >” It isnt personal, and nothing to do with a gay person, it has to do
            with beliefs about sexuality”<

            Did or would you vote against LGBT
            rights?

            If you did, guess what…it’s PERSONAL.

            If your beliefs drive your behavior to
            deliberately imping the lives of others for NO GOOD REASON, you become no
            better that a racist.

            I will say it again:

            What you “believe” is none of my
            business.

            How you behave towards others IS my
            business.

            If your so-called “religious freedom” requires
            you to deny others freedom and you ACT on it, I have a problem with you.

            Think, feel, and believe what you wish.

            BEHAVE badly for no good reason towards
            others, you cross a line.

            If your religion requires you to treat
            others with discrimination and disdain, you have one or two problems:

            1) Your religion is corrupt.

            2) Your interpretation of your religion
            has been corrupted.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnocentrism

            You didn't answer my question"

            Would you accept an atheist business owner refusing service
            to a Christian?

            Yes or no?

          • Sisyphus

            “How you behave towards others IS my business.”

            LOL
            You do not have the ‘right’ or authority to control others.

          • glenbo

            >”You do not have the ‘right’ or authority to
            control others.”<

            Well said!
            This is why the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal!

          • The USSC does not have that power, so they did no such thing

          • KNH777

            Yes i would vote against lgbt
            I dont think they that group nor black lives matter are good for anyone, and damage relationships in the community.
            Gays and blacks are both viewed less favorably because of these groups, no one wants to be forced into liking you.
            We want to like you because of who you are, fair, kind, tolerant, nice! Not forced because of sexual orientation or color.
            Sexual orientation is a moral issue, being black, or asian, or even white has nothing to do with beliefs, but sexual morality has everything to do with religious beliefs!

          • glenbo

            >”Yes i would vote against
            lgbt”” We want to like you because of
            who you are, fair, kind, tolerant, nice!”” Sexual orientation is a moral
            issue”” sexual morality has everything to
            do with religious beliefs!”<

            Please explain why anyone must respect
            your so-called “belief” in a non-existent imaginary invisible magician who condones slavery (Exodus 21, 20,21) and child murder? (1 Samuel 15:3)

          • KNH777

            The organization and their agenda i am very opposed to, people who embrace their extreme unfair views i am opposed to.
            Gay people i am not opposed to.
            So how is that bigotry?

          • glenbo

            >”The
            organization and their agenda”<

            Explain
            this “agenda.”

            Explain
            this “organization.”

            So how is that bigotry?

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

            You are against gay people’s rights because they belong to a
            group.

            That is the epitome of bigotry.

          • KNH777

            I explained it all, you agreecwith it. And i disagree with lgbt and then also you.

            I alreadyvsaid my concerns, you cant hear them, because you defend them.

            Gay marriage is not and never will be equal, no matter what government says or does.
            And ill fight hard against naturalizing sexual orientation in the eyes of children , because it is not natural and its not what God intended! Everything is permisable, you have free will, but its another thing to push it on others, especially on children who are not mature enough to evaluate any of it.

            Its 1 thing if children choose somehow along the way, thats fine, its another thing to push it on them!

            Unfair deines lgbt and all those that agree with their extreme views!
            Its fine if kids choose a sexual orientation that is unnatural, its their choice.

            But me and people like me will not sit by and let lbgt confuse an entire generation about their God given gender and their God given reproductive sexuality and alter their hopes of a natural family in their futures.

            Lgbt are theives stealing the futures of children! And unfair, ignorant, and selfish. They are not the face of the gay people i know. My daughters most loyal best friend is gay. He is the most trust worthy person of all her friends. And he is not lgbt!

          • glenbo

            >”I explained it all””God given gender and their God given reproductive sexuality””My daughters most loyal best friend is gay. He is the most trust worthy person of all her friends. And he is not lgbt!”<

            This statement makes no sense.
            The “G” in LGBT stands for…???

          • KNH777

            I am against the group and everyone that believes their extreme views!
            I am against black lives mattets and their extreme views.
            I am NOT against gay people, and I am NOT against black people.
            I am against West Boro Baptist, and I am not against Baptists, nor am I against Christians.
            I am against militant secular and atheist groups, but I am not against atheist.

            The moral of my story here is, I am against Hitler, and Terrorism, I am against people who damage others for disagreeing with them. I am for equal rights! But what you are defining as equal rights is ony favorable to you and lgbt activists, so then how is that equal rights?

          • glenbo

            >”I am for equal rights! But what you are defining as equal rights is only favorable to you and lgbt activists, so then how is that equal rights?”<

            You have no idea of the discrimination LGBT people have faced.
            I pity you.
            All you see is your selfish warped sense of religious entitlement that accomplishes nothing but hardship for those who did nothing to deserve it simply because they want to live their lives in the pursuit of happiness.

            Your “cake maker” victim nonsense pales in comparison to gay people being bulled, beaten and murdered simply because they don’t align with your inaccurate belief
            of what causes variations in human sexuality.

            Your religious freedom nonsense pales in comparison to the hundreds of gay youth who have committed suicide due to relentless rejection by people with small minded religion-poisoned ideology.

            Your LGBT gangster mentality is a nothing but FRC over-hyped false paranoia designed to propagate hate.

            Such a pity you have fallen for this.

            It is futile to continue this conversation with you since your worldview hinges on the belief in an invisible magician who condones slavery and ordered the murder of babies and children.

          • There has been no discrimination against them.

          • You need to understand logic. You are really floundering here

          • He will not get this

          • He did no such thing. Seems logic fails you

          • There are no homosexual rights

          • Liar

          • KNH777

            Would you accept an atheist business owner refusing service to a Christian?

            I dont recall any cases that way, but many the otherway. Is atheist a religion?

            And on what grounds?
            The baker said no because of religious beliefs regarding same sex marriage.
            If the gay couple came in to buy donuts, its very diff then ordering a wedding cake. Because 1 is simply people walking in buying donuts, the other is a ceromony regarding marriage which is a belief along with sexuality.

            So my answer is on what grounds.
            Atheist are always going after Christians.
            Christians dont go after atheists.

            So if I wanted a cake that said “God is alive and Lord of all, and atheist refused, id say they have a right to take a stand and not be forced to write something they dont believe

          • glenbo

            >”I dont recall any cases that way, but many the otherway. Is atheist a religion?””And on what grounds?””Atheist are always going after Christians. “”Christians dont go after atheists.””So if I wanted a cake that said “God is alive and Lord
            of all, and atheist refused, id say they have a right to take a stand and not be forced to write something they dont believe”<

            There’s a difference between inscribing a specific message in the form of text and saying we don’t serve your kind.

            The cake maker messed up NOT because of a stupid cake. The cake maker messed up because she said “we don’t make this type of cake for you people like YOU.”

            You are confusing message with group. The gay clients weren’t discriminated because of a message; they were discriminated against because they are “one of those
            people…” which is against the law.

            A cake isn't a message.

            Making a cake isn't religious conduct.

            BIG mistake.
            She deserved and earned her punishment.

          • Sisyphus

            Mirror, mirror…

          • KNH777

            it is not up to people, or government, or courts to scruitinize anyone’s beliefs Including gays who have religious beliefs that are inclusive of sexual orientaton, unless a real crime has been commited. Just like freedom of speech of every degree is protected!
            Both speech and religious freedom are personal expression regarding what they think and believe about everything that matters to them!
            Disabilities are not a choice and being black isnt a choice either, although honestly, America needs to head in a different direction where all people regardless of race, all are equaly protected, and NOT especially protected!
            Protected classes should be represented of all groups of people and found in every race and culture! Such as disabilities, and religions, ages, and gender.
            I’ ll explain:
            Religion because it effects all races, genders, classes, and found in every walk of life. Every religion from Christian to Muslim to Jews etc, and also religions that are permissive, and are inclusive of gay membership and leadership should have religious freedom. Does it mean we won’ t bump into each other at times, but how about we behave politely and say excuse me! Or ok discussed agree to disagree! Isnt that what a “progressive” society is all about!
            Disabilities protected because they need to compete according to the abilities they do have. And people with disabilities are present in every group. And age, because they have to compete against younger candidates, and again age is a factor for every group so it is selective of none. And women, because they need to compete equally against men who have different strengths, and women need to be able to compete according to their strengths, and not limited by the weaknesses they may present in a workplace, physically, or even regards to future pregnancies, birth, maternity leaves, sick kids, and other family responsibilities that could cause bias or expense of down time or added health insurance costs. Up till recently health insurances have been higher because of reproduction. An example are the nuns who recently fought cost of health insurance inclusive of reproductive ability. And they are abstinent, (except for some who change their mind and take directions leading out of the vocation)
            The following groups of classes are across the board represented in every single group of race and culture. So American 1st!
            America is multi cultural so every culture should be protected classes – American 1st, and white 2nd, italian 2nd, black 2nd, gay 2nd, married 2nd, single 2nd, economic class 2nd.
            But in every American group of people, there are equally specific groups whovshould be protection from discrimination.
            And its reasonable, because it puts competing equal for all in every group. But it can’t be given above religious freedom of all, or its selective group breeching separation of church and state because then it prohibits the free exercise of religion for all, except for 1 such as LGBT.
            Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. it’s a lifestyle, and sexual choice. Even if you believe it was genetic, every baby is born with the same option of choice, and genetic or not can choose it.
            But in common every group has:
            Disabled, Age, Gender, and Religion.
            We as a society should have moved beyond the racial division to the next phase atleast 10 years ago. Not adding more divisions!!
            There will always be bullies, for everyone, in every group.
            Reverse discrimination is just as much a problem as discrimination!!
            The baker could even be an example of this, she was signaled out in reverse discrimination, legally, for her beliefs. Yet not 1 case invoving Muslims was brought forth even though they believe the same. There is footage showing 3 Muslim bakeries who also would not make a cake against their own religious beliefs!
            Discrimination for sexual orientation opens religions up for open hunting season as targets to be abused by anyone who is sexually oriented protected.
            Re: Transgender bathroom laws: We were not likely aware or able to notice transgenders in bathrooms. But creating laws, protecting them in discriminations and allowing choice of bathrooms are also open hunting season by anyone who wants to exploit others, for personal gain, political media attention, or both, and also for preditors. So if transgenders are really living like their identity, then go in, close the door, and dont draw unneeded attention. And live amd let live! If arrested, there is defense! You dont NEED a law for that! Bring your doctors report and it isnt an issue! Maybe an exclusive allowance if identified could prevent problems instead of creating them. NC didnt randomly make a law, they made it in response to extreme demands made by groups like LGBT! So be mad at them!
            The problem is, special interest groups want to be special, superior, stand out, have special privelages, and allowances. They want to be able to control society, and discrimination laws are a license to control and abuse others. They are only divisive, and cause unfairness to others resulting in further discrimination, and reverse discrimination!
            And this is the liberals play ground, the more problems they create, the more it looks like you all need them!
            There will always be hate crimes for everyone. Fat, ugly, body shaming, gay, short, black, white, spanish, asian etc.
            Compete as Americans, put these divisive groups out!

          • glenbo

            >”Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.
            it’s a lifestyle, and sexual choice.”<

            Religion should not be a protected class. it's a lifestyle,
            and a choice.

          • KNH777

            Religion all of them can be abused, hindering the beliefs of people is needed. Even the belief that having gay sexuality.

            The diff between what people who share my views compared to people who share yours is, we say live and let live we wont penalize your beliefs. And people like you say your belief is all that matters and you will penalize anyone qho doesnt share the same belief as you.
            You call us names, bigot etc. And we just want you to be fair to others.
            Hmmm???

          • glenbo

            >”No one
            should force anyone to believe something or be penalized. No one should be forced into something against their beliefs.””No one should be forced into something against their beliefs.”” people like you say your belief is all that matters
            and you will penalize anyone qho doesnt share the same belief as you.”<

            Thank you!!!!

            You just accurately described what anti-gay hating bigoted Christians actually do!!!

            If you don’t like being called a bigot, then don’t ACT LIKE
            ONE!

            OMG. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

            How is wanting the same rights you have being unfair?

            How is wanting to be treated with equality being unfair?

            Oh my GAWD!

            You are so brainwashed.

          • Sisyphus

            LOL

          • KNH777

            Why do you think everyone has to believe like you or they are bigots?

            While out giving blakets ans sandwiches to homeless in philly a few years back, I went to a church to use their bathroom, the person there said theyd be glad to let me, but cant because i am a women who is wearing pants.
            So i went to a different bathroom!

          • glenbo

            >”Why do you think everyone
            has to believe like you or they are bigots?”<

            This whole issue isn’t about belief.

            It is about behavior.

            Please try to get through your head.

            LGBT people don’t give a crap if you
            believe in a non-existent imaginary invisible magician.

            LGBT people care when you act like a
            jerk towards them because you “believe” your non-existent imaginary invisible magician gives you divine permission to do so.

            This is why Muslims are not allowed to
            commit honor killings in America.

            By your reasoning, they should.

          • KNH777

            Behavior follows beliefs.

            Regardless of what you believe about being gay, at birth or iylts also natural, is still belief.
            I am very aware they dont care about others beliefs.
            That is what i am saying.

            There is a way to live without depriving anyone of their rights. But thats not what lgbt is doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not interested in just giving you the right to have a partner for life, they are not happy till they punish anyone that disagrees as morality regarding sexual orientation.
            And also indoctranate the entire next generation against parents.
            They are selfish, and jave no idea of the effects in the next generation, and they dint care. Because they are only concerned for their agenda.

            And fyi, thats like “terrorists”

          • glenbo

            >”There is a way to live without depriving anyone of their rights. But thats not what lgbt is doing”” And also indoctranate the entire next generation against parents.””they are not happy till they punish anyone that disagrees as morality regarding sexual orientation.”” they are only concerned for their agenda.”<

            Wanting equal rights isn’t an “agenda.”

            You are SEVERELY deluded.

          • KNH777

            Scripture 1 Corinthians 6: 9

            do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
            Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

            Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

          • glenbo

            Your pretend god is a monster.
            Leviticus 25:44-46

            Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations
            around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your
            children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

            Exodus 21:2-6

            If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six
            years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she
            is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

            “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife
            and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

            Exodus 21:7-11

            7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to
            go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects
            her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
            Exodus 21:20-21

            And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and
            he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
            21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall
            not be punished: for he is his money.

            ! Samuel 15:3

            Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
            have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

          • LOL, going to have to do better than that. Tell me why do you like blowing feces covered penises, Now that is a very disgusting and vile act, are you such a degraded person that you have lowered yourself to such demeaning acts. Tell us where there is love in that act

          • And again, your attacks against the religious, I why non religious people like me see you as the bigot. Why must you insult the religious.

          • Belief (religious has very little to do with opposing the morally corrupt from forcing their beliefs on society. I am not religious at all, and I oppose what you stand for

            You homosexuals are the most intolerant bigots I have ever seen

          • KNH777

            not true, even if against gay sexuality, most did not oppose civil unions.
            It became a oroblem when natural marriage was threatened.
            Even if the devout fought that, it doesnt make current events justified.

            I dont hold my strong dislike for extremist lgbt people against friends we have that are gay.

            But I can say, lgbt has left a strong dislike in me for people who use sexual orientation to not be fair to others.
            And I didnt feel that way before, they created those feelings, im sure in not alone. Again they did more harm than good, and people like you confirm it day in and day out. Brcause i see you as a bigot and as intolerant, not the baker!

            I hate when people are unfair to others.
            So, i would probably fight for people to have a civil union, regardless of my personal beliefs on sexuality.

            But I will whole heartedly fight against this lgbt movement because it is unfair to others, and I see it as an illegal government action, a breach against the Constitution, and a crime against Americans, and against Religion, and against an entire generation of children in elementary schools and early education, and against their parents!!!

            I probably would bake a cake for a civil union, But not for same sex marriage as currently defined.
            Not because of my beliefs, although I believe a gay lifestyle is against God.

            Dont feel bad though, because i think alot of people are against God.
            Jesus said said narrow is the way, and few find it.

            So people who know God, and are His children are very few! Regardless, they have a right to believe what they want.

          • glenbo

            >”most did not oppose civil unions.””It became a oroblem when natural marriage was
            threatened.””Even if the devout fought that, it doesnt make current
            events justified.””people who use sexual orientation to not be fair to
            others.””Again they did more harm than good, and people like you
            confirm it day in and day out. Brcause i see you as a bigot and as intolerant, not the baker!””I hate when people are unfair to others.””So, i would probably fight for people to have a civil
            union””But I will whole heartedly fight against this lgbt
            movement because it is unfair to others, and I see i t as an illegal government action, a breach against the Constitution, and a crime against Americans, and against Religion, and against an entire generation of children in elementary
            schools and early education, and against their parents!!!””Not because of my beliefs, although I believe a gay
            lifestyle is against God.””Dont feel bad though, because i think alot of people
            are against God.

            Jesus said said narrow is the way, and few find it.””So people who know God, and are His children are very
            few! Regardless, they have a right to believe what they want.”<

            Fine.

            Just do the rest of the world a favor…keep your beliefs as
            beliefs, and don’t turn them into negative behaviors that hurt others for no
            reason.

          • KNH777

            Sorry you think that way.

            Ive discussed points with you, and you seem to want a world that exists for you and is not judging you. But you are judgemental, and angy, and hostile to others rights.

            You are like terrorists then, thats all. The only thing missing is your vest

          • glenbo

            >”Ive discussed points with you”<

            You have dodged EVERY SINGLE question and done nothing but make unfounded false presumptive assertions that you cannot back up.

            And now you are personally attacking me and insulting me.

            This demonstrates that you intellectually bankrupt in all of your so-called “claims” and “facts.”

            You thereby concede to defeat in this debate by failing to answer simple questions and resorted to insults and personal attacks.

            But thanks for playing!

          • No, you have dodged every question, and it is you who is making assertions you cannot back up.

            No one has personally attacked you, yet you attack everyone here

            The only one showing they are bankrupt both intellectually and morally is you.

            So it is you who is conceding defeat

          • glenbo

            You have been reported for harassment.

          • LOL, now that is funny

          • Civil unions do work, and civil unions are equal.
            No one is trying to decide for homosexuals what they should and should not have

            Why are you so militant, you do realize that militancy is using countered with force. So stop crying that we oppose your militancy

          • Bans on gay marriage are not all based on Religious beliefs

          • Tell you what, you can always leave the country

          • Sisyphus

            Not a comparable example.

    • kathyh777

      Ill tell you why all of what I mentioned is their agenda!

      Because they are identifying and targetting Christians, and they are selectively discriminating! And now they van di it legally, and TIE the hands of religious freedom.

      Is “tieing” or “forcing,” the same as “freedom?”

      • glenbo

        How so?Because they are identifying and targetting Christians, and they are selectively discriminating!”<
        How so?

        • kathyh777

          EXCLUSIVE – LGBT GROUP: SHUT CHURCHES DOWN!
          April 01, 2015

          Today, in a stunning statement, Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality argued that churches who do not support same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.

          “Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501(c)3 status revoked!!”

          Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with Artery’s views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down.

          Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.

          • glenbo

            >”Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality argued that
            churches who do not support same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.”<

            I disagree.

            Churches and pastors are and will always be exempt. This is
            nothing but hype, and you have obviously fallen into it.

            I support the right of true churches to be allowed to abide by
            their cherry picked doctrine as per the Constitution, but not public businesses that operate along streets paved by taxpayer money.

            However, any religious or Christian organization, such as a
            Christian school that receives tax funded state or federal subsidiaries should lose their tax exempt status should they choose to discriminate.

            After all, one cannot expect a free ride from the tax paying
            public while insisting they can tell the tax paying public to take a hike.

          • kathyh777

            Thats not true you conveniently uninformed. And listen to how your generation is. No respect for others
            Shame on people like you.

          • glenbo

            >”And listen to how your generation is.”“No respect for others”<

            You have this backwards.
            You concept of "religious freedom" is absurdly flawed.
            Your backwards model is:

            If a Christian discriminates against someone, it is called "religious freedom."
            If someone returns the favor, it is called "persecution.

            A mess.

            Has your hatred of LGBT people corrupted your ability to judge the character of others? It appears so.

            You must be a Christian.*

            *Note to Christians…I'm not saying that all Christians are judgmental intolerant hateful misinformed bigots…
            just that most judgmental intolerant hateful misinformed bigots are almost always Christians.

          • You are a bigot

          • Sisyphus

            You have a very subjective idea as to what constitutes discrimination.

          • glenbo

            >”You have a very subjective idea as to what constitutes
            discrimination.”<

            No, I do not.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

          • Sisyphus

            You most certainly do have a ‘very subjective idea’, for by your statements only those you approve of can be ‘discriminated against’.
            A most self centered subjective viewpoint.

          • It seems you do have a very subjective idea as to what Discrimination is

          • He is a piece of trash

          • Your side is attacking the Christians, time we use force back

          • glenbo

            >”Your side is attacking the Christians”” Your side is attacking the
            Christians”<

            Please back this claim up by providing a logical, rational
            reason why LGBT people would even think of deliberately “attacking” Christians.

            Why?

          • Look at you here, all you are doing is attacking

          • Sisyphus

            Just so you know, there is no such thing as a “public business”!

          • glenbo

            >”Just so you know, there is no such thing as a “public business”!”<
            Businesses open to the public have to follow certain guidelines of law.
            If not, Barronelle will win her lawsuit against the city suing her.

          • Sisyphus

            RIF.
            There is a difference between ‘public’ and ‘open to the public’.
            If you cannot discern the difference you qualify for the supreme court, according to this administration.

          • glenbo

            >”There is a difference
            between ‘public’ and ‘open to the public’.”<

            Businesses “open to the public” are
            required to follow legal guidelines.

            As a contractor, my business is open to
            the public.

            As an atheist business owner, can I
            deny my services to Christians?

            Are you okay with that?

            Will you accept that?

          • Sisyphus

            It doesn’t matter to me how you conduct your business.

          • glenbo

            >”It doesn’t matter to me how
            you conduct your business”<

            So your answer is yes.
            Thank you for saying it’s okay for atheists to discriminate against Christians!

          • Sisyphus

            Why is that you seek approval of others?
            Is that a sign of your insecurity?
            Your actions are up to you and the consequences are yours to take.

          • glenbo

            >”Why
            is that you seek approval of others? Is
            that a sign of your insecurity?”<

            Sorry, I don’t debate anyone who resorts to personal attacks and insults when they have lost an argument.

          • Not a personal attack. A question is not an attack

          • glenbo

            You have been reported for harassment.

          • LOL, now that is funny. I did receive your complaint, and I did throw it away

            You do not understand, this is my page
            You do not make the rules here, so thank you for proving our point that you are the bigot

          • SquirePraggerstope

            ;^D hahahahahahahahahaha……

            …”You have no power here, Glenbo The Pink. You are nameless,.. facelessss,.. formlesssss!!…. and clueless.

            ..Go back to the intellectual void from whence you came!!!”

            Oh. and Glen, no use flourishing your ring at anyone, either, mate. (_*_)

          • What is funny, is you are the bigot who tries to silence opposing voices, yet I let you stay here and make an ass out of yourself

          • The only one who has lost the argument here is you

          • Some already do, so what is your point you are trying to make. Everyone discriminates

          • As a business owner you do not have to do business with anyone if you so desire

          • Wrong answer. Private Businesses do not have to serve people they do not want to serve. No shirt, no shoes no service

          • glenbo

            Sir, you are dismissed

          • Because you cannot refute the truth

          • SquirePraggerstope

            but not public businesses that operate along streets paved by taxpayer money.

            Would that include the taxes paid by the businesses themselves, their owners, employees, suppliers, customers, etc, by any slight chance??

            However, any religious or Christian organization, such as a Christian school that receives tax funded state or federal subsidiaries should lose their tax exempt status

            Sorry, but are you referring here to private or parochial schools or to both?

            Oh, and btw, in the case where a school receives state but not federal funding, would you accept according to your own logic that only the state should decide on its tax status re state taxes, while the federal power ought not to be able to remove federal exemption?

          • There will be crickets now

          • How about if you stop forcing your immoral beliefs on people. Not everyone is going to accept what you choose to do.

        • Hi bigot

          • glenbo

            >”Hi bigot”<
            Defending LGBT rights isn't bigotry. My mother is a Christian, as well as my brother, cousin, best friend, and most of my clients.
            What makes me a bigot? I have no intentions of denying the any rights. Your comment is false.
            You are not debating if you refuse to answer questions, as above, and you are not debating if all you can do in defense of your claims is throw insults.

          • Bigot, you are a hater

          • Actually it is bigotry to attack the Christians like you are doing. What is funny is even non Christians do not like what you are doing and are fighting back against people like you

        • Look at current events

      • Really it is time we stopped turning the other cheek. Time to fight back

    • glenbo

      >”Liberal protests consist of burning a business to the
      ground or suing them out of business.”<

      This is an extreme assumption.

      Can you provide a rational and logical motive as to why
      anyone would want to do this?

      • Ferd

        Ferguson is no assumption.
        Baltimore riots are no assumption.
        Seattle cops on May Day hit with a Molotov cocktail is no assumption.
        Suing bakers and florists out of business is no assumption.
        Do you live under a rock?
        There is no rational or logical reason for their acting like a bunch of heathens.
        Just a bunch of sick f*cking liberal minds.

        • glenbo

          >”There is no rational or logical reason”<
          You are correct.
          It makes no sense for a random gay person to want to randomly "sue a cake maker out of business."
          Absolutely no logic to that at all.
          It makes no sense for anyone to want to deliberately bankrupt a company, especially if the company didn't violate any laws.
          Makes no sense at all.
          Thank you for pointing this out and agreeing with me on this.

          • Ferd

            Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

          • glenbo

            >”Were you dropped on your head as a baby?”<

            If I was, I too would probably believe in non-existent imaginary invisible magicians and believe that they tell me I need to act like an a$$hole towards my fellow man…in total contradiction to what the non-existent imaginary invisible magician's Son- that I also would believe in- taught me how to treat my fellow man.

          • Ferd

            I need to act like an a$$hole towards my fellow man…

            And you do it well.

          • glenbo

            >”And you do it well.”<
            Gee…I remember this…from somewhere…
            Isn't this the old "I know you are but what am I" response when one is intellectually bankrupt?
            Yes! It is!
            Wow…
            It has been quite a while since 3rd grade.

          • He is the type of person we should be going against

          • BS, this is what your side is doing

          • glenbo

            >”BS, this is what your side is doing”<
            My "side?" Please explain what my "side" is.
            So if a gay person sues a cake maker, what would be the motive?

          • Sisyphus

            Greed and selfishness.

          • glenbo

            >”Greed and selfishness.”<

            Wrong.

            The correct answer is justice.

            Justice for being the victim of a wrong
            doing by said cake maker.

            Your pretense of making the aggressor the
            victim and the victim the aggressor reeks of irrational and ignorant selfish hypocrisy.

          • Sisyphus

            Now we see it in all of its ‘glory’, the victim-stancing of the statest mind.
            The only victim in that bakery situation was the baker (being forced into servitude).
            Your prejudicial hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking skills are showing.

          • Actually he is correct, all you have are greed and selfishness

            Justice will be for the Baker to win

          • The only motive gay people have is hate

          • glenbo

            Sir, you have been reported for harassment.

          • LOL, you complained to me. LOL

          • glenbo

            >”LOL, you complained to me.
            LOL”[[ pauljones6482

            LOL, going to have to do better than that. Tell me why do
            you like blowing feces covered penises, Now that is a very disgusting and vile act, are you such a degraded person that you have lowered yourself to such demeaning acts. Tell us where there is love in that act ]]<

          • This is not a Disqus site, this is my site, the complaint came to me

            The act described is the act you engage in.Tell us how that is anything about love

          • LOL, what are you going to do now

    • Richard

      Or using the DOJ to persecute bakeries.

  • “Liberals have co-opted Hollywood”?

    Boycott “Western” (K*kestream) movies.

    I just wasted three hours watching La Reine Margot. — “Wasted”, apart from gathering more of the endless data on K*ke subversion and perversion.

    There are lots of t*ts, and you can see Isabelle Adjani’s bush, as well as few limp dicks, lots of “up-against-the-wall, b*tch!” f*cking, and a heroic K*ke. The Huguenots are all blameless decent heroes, funded by a “Catholic” K*ke who “fled persecution” in Spain.

    The movie is dreary, over-acted, badly written — basically, sh*t. Lots of awards. Executive Produced by (= funded by) a K*ke — Pierre Grunstein – of course.

    * * *

    Shaking Up France’s Royal Family Tree

    By [K*KE] JANET MASLIN, [THE K*KE’s] New York Times

    The [GOYEEEM] aristocracy: Scheming and randy. A slew of double-dealing French noblemen in a struggle for power, fueled by ambition, forbidden passions and religious strife. This story incorporates the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and culminates in both a poisoning and a beheading.

    Mr. Chereau, a noted director of theater and opera, attacks this story of rival Catholic and Huguenot royalty with raging revisionist [what!? he denies the Sacred Holocaust?] passion.

    So here in the 16th century are hand-held camera work, rock star hairdos (the sons of Catherine de Medicis could pass for an aging heavy-metal band) and remarks like “Love me like never before!” and “I need a man tonight.”

    In this overheated atmosphere, the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, involving the slaughter of thousands of Protestants by Catherine’s minions, is actually one of the calmer episodes depicted on screen. The film has a hysterical edge.

    “Queen Margot” begins with an arranged marriage between the Catholic Marguerite de Valois, also known as Margot, and the Protestant Henri de Navarre (Daniel Auteuil), who will one day rule France as Henri IV. She has a lover, he has a mistress and the marriage has no meaning except as a method of quelling warfare between religious factions. [Those hypocritical goyeeem! Only White Christians engage in intrigue.] When the bride and groom remark about their mothers on the wedding day, Margot says, “Yours hated me.” Henri’s answer: “Yours killed mine.”

    Virna Lisi’s shockingly witchy appearance and evil mannerisms won her the best-actress prize at Cannes this year. Her Catherine is indeed someone to be reckoned with. She manipulates the strange, unstable [crazy Goyeeem!] Charles IX (Jean-Hugues Anglade), the King of France, while clearly favoring another of her sons, the Duc d’Anjou (Pascal Greggory). The happy family portrait is compounded by strong hints of incest [“hints”!? no. the alleged royal Goyeeem incest is very explicit in this K*ke production]. One of the film’s typically impassioned exchanges finds Margot very nearly being raped by her brothers. [one of the “hints” – that’s when you get to see Adjani’s bush as her brothers rip her clothes off and talk about all the times they’ve raped her already — “hints of incest”, according to this K*ke b*tch Maslin.]

    Ms. Adjani is decked out gloriously to play the very young Margot. She roams the streets of Paris wearing a ball gown and a tiny eye mask, trying to pass incognito while searching for a lover. The man she finds, the Comte Joseph-Hyacinthe Boniface de Lerac de la Mole (Vincent Perez), is presented as so noble a figure that religious music sanctifies each Margot-La Mole love [=porn] scene.

    (Written in French by Daniele Thompson and Patrice Chereau, based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas; directed by Mr. Chereau; produced by Claude Berri [Executive producer: K*ke Pierre Grunstein]; released by [K*KE] Miramax.)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c06dfd46232aa7a4987fd8f7dbd368c02f21625ecc5465fe56763f8647d397e.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/692c12b2961d372945682f638a348532162646e46985e5a5566a93c56e87aecb.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0ad64e25c39461e3b4916cd137bd6c8f4697076a042c8028ee97ffd5935ce1eb.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/198ff3a264da37603326011d412ef240a39a656732dd13894afcb1381a54d92d.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/26f1dc349fc6b9b6d094910985fdfbc49fdc1b040c24f1cba6b909123520986b.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9e09c04f8de450fbdf56df95fe71e10b30f1f55b9ffc632aeb36730550af5eea.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b3029450910877ae38400d0480dd4e8110c3d74c36aa16e2882684ef15be5346.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5df82c1359cf5adba44cf78bedf268e12f65d9f25dcc55e1a0477eb5051d531.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/923048984c0bd5ce94fe074a53d92e1a0b53e83c00083726b5821526410222ce.png

    • SquirePraggerstope

      What are we supposed to be, it seems, ‘not’ boycotting here? Some ludicrous latterday English subtitled version of Der Sturmer or Der Ewige Jude or something of the same obnoxious ilk?

      Well, no thanks. It’s one of the few sorts of things I think repugnant enough to MERIT boycotting..

      • stay away from the jew
        it’s the best thing to do

        • Gillian C.

          Sound advice. That’s also what I was brought up with.

    • SquirePraggerstope

      There are lots of t*ts, and you can see Isabelle Adjani’s bush

      …so really, it’s just like most other French “General Audiences” rated movies.

  • Townhall? What a cucksite.

    Dennis Prager, Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Jonah Goldberg, Rebecca Hagelin, Paul Jacob, Paul Kengor, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Jacob Sullum, Jeb Bush, Bruce Bialosk oy vey

    • kathyh777

      What is it you hate about them?

      • Kykes, mostly, and cucks

        • Sisyphus

          So, you hate Jews…?
          Who else does not meet your standard?

  • boycott cuck media like Townhall

  • KNHAV777

    It is irresponsible for Judges and law makers to pass a law like Gay Marriage,
    without considering potential consequences and total impact in every demographic
    group, businesses, schools, in media content, children’s programming etc should
    be considered to protect the general welfare of all. aftermath of the ruling
    and its

    No law should ever pass that could cause society as a whole to suffer and disrupt
    the healthy balance of morality/immorality
    to many varying degrees with middle ground, neutrality, not offensive to a
    reasonable level taking into consideration every walk of life across every ages.

    We are supposed to have freedom to exercise our religious faith throughout our
    everyday lives without a challenge to our privately held beliefs, but now many small
    businesses have become publicized targets, damaging public opinion of their businesses
    as a of the same sex marriage ruling.

    If wedding related businesses choose not to provide services for gay weddings, they
    may be taken to court and incur costs, fines, lost time, and will likely suffer
    damages by public opinion. Before this law was passed, businesses reserved to
    run their business according to their own business model, according to their moral
    consciences.

    Providing great service, treating clients professionally, and delivering an
    excellent product they could reasonably expect business growth and many
    referrals through word of mouth from happy customers.

    Heterosexual couples who get engaged were going to be future clients who they depend
    on to support their businesses through referrals through excellent reputations,
    likely will go elsewhere on the basis of
    private moral values. Their personal values shouldn’t be forced into public
    scrutiny. Future clients they depend on to support their business go elsewhere in
    support of gay marriage.

    Was this law fair, and just, or Constitutional? What choice did the Supreme
    Court give to people who do not want an EQUAL presence of unnatural marriage
    with natural marriage?

    This is the choice the Supreme Court left wedding related business owners: Either
    – Lay down your religious freedom, your rite to personal privately held values,
    your rite to compete on merit of quality services, your own integrity of
    conscience, your morals, your political views and opinions, Or – Let whatever
    public scorning of your business just happen.

    • glenbo

      >”If wedding related businesses choose not to provide services for gay weddings, they may be taken to court and incur costs, fines, lost time, and will likely suffer damages by public opinion.”<
      Wedding caterers are free to find another line of work if obeying anti-discrimination laws conflicts with their model of what is moral and immoral.

      • kathyh777

        What if you were an animal activist, and I was a butcher? Should you have a right to not stock meat on the shelves of your store. And shouldnt I have a right to be a butcher and provide people who like and want steak, in other grocery stores?

        Or should the animal rights person be able to trample my rights? Or mine theirs?
        Which one of us should be forced to shut down? Who gets to decide?
        Animal activists or people who want to eat steak?

        Wouldnt you want to be remain in full control of your own religious freedom?
        Why let them take that?
        Arent they taking it from all of us, including all of you, except Muslims?

        Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.

        This should come as no surprise, as it reflects the vile militancy the LGBT movement is known for. Just as they unleashed threats of violence and arson against a tiny pizzeria in Indiana when they dared to express a very mild opinion against gay marriage, so they want to punish Christians who dare to preach, well, Christianity.

        Notice who he did not mention: “mosques.” Gays never criticize Islam, even though it is only Muslims(not Christians, who are commiting hate crimes against gays. And bullying is not a Christian adgenda against gays, its individuals) Muslims are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them from buildings every single week.

        So why attack Christians?

        The baker who was respectful to that gay couple, had a religious belief she exercised according to her concience. They destroyed her business! Good? Fair? In the same area, a guy requ bakers went to several Muslim owned bakeries, each said no!

        So, do you think gays arent aware that many Muslim bakeries would also say no? Do you think they are targeting people and groups?

        Wake up they are not giving you anything, tbey are taking everything away from you, on purpose!

        • glenbo

          >” What if you were an animal activist, and I was a
          butcher?”” The baker — had a religious belief she exercised”” Muslims are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them
          from buildings”” This is what tyranny looks like.”” They destroyed her business!”” So, do you think gays arent aware that many Muslim
          bakeries would also say no?”<

          This is an Illogical comparison. They would also be guilty
          of violating anti-discrimination laws as well.

          No harm would come to a cake maker if he/she just sold the
          cake.
          Unless I’m missing something…

          • kathyh777

            Its a shame your so self centered. Not to see her personal rights.

            What damages did the gay people have exactly?

          • glenbo

            >”Its a shame your so self centered. Not to see her personal rights.”<
            If she sold the gay couple the cake, what harm would have befallen her?

          • Sisyphus

            The selfishness is promoted by those of you that DEMAND special consideration for your wants.

          • glenbo

            >”The selfishness is promoted by those of you that DEMAND
            special consideration for your wants.”<

            And Christian business owners don’t demand and do the exact
            same selfish thing?

            The pot calls the kettle black.

          • Sisyphus

            LOL

          • There are no Christian business owners asking for special rights, you on the other hand are asking for special rights

          • That is not the point, she has the freedom to choose who and when she does her business, you want to take that away from her

          • Ferd

            Unless I’m missing something…

            Just the cognitive portion of your brain.

          • glenbo

            >”Just the cognitive portion of your brain.”<
            So you admit NO HARM would befall a Christian cake maker if said cake maker made a wedding cake for a gay couple.
            Thank You!

          • Ferd

            That is quite a stretch. But since you have a brain that doesn’t function properly, it is understandable.

          • glenbo

            >”you have a brain that doesn’t function properly”<
            How interesting it is that the only way you can justify your irrational, unreasonable and unsubstantiatable "religious freedom" driven bigotry and needless hate is to avoid answering simple questions with logic and reason, but instead your only way to address it is to attempt to insult those who question it.
            Typical religious armament.
            How revealing.
            How pitifully weak.
            How desperately reaching.

          • Ferd

            Since I have not touched on the topic of religion, your ASSumptions only make an ASS of you.

          • glenbo

            >”Since I have not touched on the topic of religion””Liberal protests consist of burning a business to the
            ground or suing them out of business.””Suing bakers and florists out of business is no
            assumption.”<

            Let me ask you this:
            Do you support gay people having the rights to marry?
            If not, why?

          • Ferd

            Your quotes of my words say nothing re religion.
            Not only were you dropped on yer head, you bounced on same down a flight of concrete stairs.

            What I support or don’t support is NOYFB.

          • glenbo

            >”Your quotes of my words say nothing re religion.””What I support or don’t support is NOYFB.”<

            Too late. Your anti-gay disposition radiates brightly.

            By your reluctance to answer simple honest questions and by your resorting to personal attacks and insults proves you are intellectually bankrupt in this debate.

            By doing this, you thereby concede to defeat in this debate.

            But thanks for playing!

          • The only one engaging in personal attacks are you

          • Sisyphus

            ‘Gays’ have always had the same “right” to marry as anyone else, the fact that ‘they’ prefer to diddle their own type is irrelevant.

          • glenbo

            >”’Gays’ have always had the
            same “right” to marry as anyone else.”” the fact that ‘they’ prefer to diddle their own type is irrelevant”<

            The fact you prefer a different car, or
            prefer a different church is irrelevant.

            Do you see how stupid you sound?

            What makes you think you have the right to regulate and control the freedom and choices of others?

          • Sisyphus

            Cars are irrelevant.
            The circular nonsense is cute, try to see past your prejudice.

          • glenbo

            >”Cars are irrelevant.”<

            I knew I would trip you up with my
            response.

            It’s not the car, buddy…it’s having the
            FREEDOM to CHOOSE!

            You own the choices and freedoms of
            others.

          • Sisyphus

            You may choose to do as you please, just do not demand that others support, condone, supply, or participate.
            You are still showing your own arrogant bigotry.

          • And you want to restrict and take away the freedom to choose for people that oppose your beliefs

          • Your whole post is illogical

          • You never addressed his point, so you are making an ass of yourself

          • This guy is an idiot

          • Actually fining the baker or any business, or forcing them to participate in acts that they do not want to, is taking away the rights of the bakers, photographers, etc

            Has nothing to do with the bible

            There is no anti gay bigotry in the USA

            It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of stopping you forcing your beliefs on people

      • And they are justified in using force against those seeking to harm them

  • Lance H

    We should embrace a lot more than boycotts. Conservatives seem to be the only ones that respect rules and laws; meanwhile, libprogs don’t, as evidenced by their violent, destructive protests and loud demands that we don’t enforce certain laws (immigration/borders). But libprogs are essentially given a pass while enjoying widespread media coverage helping advance their causes. We’re handicapping ourselves against them.

  • kathyh777

    If they look the part, we wont ask

    So then the question isnt, why we all are making a big deal out of it?
    Since most admit transgenders have been using our bathrooms for years, and no one noticed, right?

    The question is why, if none of us bothered them, then why do they want to draw attention to it, and add laws and allowances that can be abused by many, and do us harm in many many different ways?

    Open your eyes! LGBT is not your nice friendly good hearted friend, who happens to be gay!!

    LGBT is an organization who wants to take the rights and freedoms of all others away.

    And it should not be acceptable to any of you, transgender, gay, or straight!

    They do not share the space, so everyone enjoys their rights and freedoms!

    WE are not against gays or transgender people, we are against a destructive agenda loaded with control and propaganda that cares nothing for the rights of every individual, and will abuse society mercilessly if allowed!
    And you all are allowing them!

    They are a cruel taskmaster any control given to them they will damage and exploit on purpose good people, who are people you love in your own lives and communities!

    Wake up please, we need you all including gays to fight back and keep everyones rights and freedoms intact!

  • kathyh777

    LGBT are a useless group. They are festering selfishness in our young adults.

    Lets all turn our backs and ingnore LGBT
    They are faceless and selfish.

    Lets ignore their faces like they ignored all ours! Push them back to the hell they belong in. And lets be nice to all people including gays, instead of “especially gays”

    Lets get this going by tweet and everywhere, and invalidate this group! They are not good for us or for our gay friends and family!

    Speak the truth. They are nothing but selfish and cruel! Remove their hate and there is nothing left.
    Tweet and post to invalidate LGBT !

  • kathyh777

    I love when Millennials are asked questions they dont have a trained response for.

    Their answers become even more insulting, and they ignore most every point, and over generalize with brutal hate!

    Challenge them sensibly, and you step on a land mine! If you talked to any, you know exactly what I’m saying!

    I hope there is something good in them we deposited, because they are lost in everyway!

    I’m not overly religious, but I have to say, they have been taken over! And God, who they are millitantly removing from our society is actually their only answer!

    How can we let them dismiss religious freedom? Imagine America without his presence moving freely in our communities through people that at least respect Him.

    Its a scarey place when a whole generation disrespects God, hates others, and doesnt value religious freedom!

    This generation has become ugly inside, and they are influenced by hateful bullies like LGBT, and Black Lives Matter.

    Remember when we had a Golden Rule Standard?

    They think takeover and force and hate accomplishes more than respecting each other, and showing tolerance and good sportsmanship with others.

    They are a sad bunch! So if you have any millennials that still have even a little light on inside them, start a conversation with this movie, “God Is Not Dead.”

    They may remember what it was like to be a part of something positive, instead of the negativity that has taken them over, and currently has them brainwashed!

    I think God has made this movie available for us to use to start a conversation, maybe even a movement.

    God help em all!

    Everyone that has a Millennial, if they had any church or youth group, sit down with them and watch
    1st of all its awesome! 2nd of all, they may remember what it was like to be touched by others, and touched by God.

    They are an army of mean people, steeped in selfishness, and brainwashed, I’d almost have to say they are taken over by darkness.

    I really think they are brainwashed!

  • Richard

    Great points.

    The problem is logistics in part, and personality type in part.

    Logistics: Most conservatives are responsible people who work… who have a job and responsibility and cannot devote the time to organize these boycotts and protests. The left consists of funded welfare queens, overpaid actors and yes ACTRESSES (that means female “actors” for all you progressives), and idealistic students.

    Personality: As the article noted, we do not share the same passion as liberals. Ann Coulter once noted that “Conservatives view liberals as silly, whereas liberals view conservatives as evil.”

    But by all means, if a boycott can be organized, its great to follow along.

    ***

    More broadly, if we are to challenge the left, it needs to be at the educational level. In my experiences here on disqus, it is clear how the young have been very strongly indoctrinated into hating the American system, tradition, capitalism, and Whitey. We need to figure out a way to control teachers’ behaviors so that they stay on topic of academic subjects and off of personal politics.

    • KNH777

      They are brainwashed through their education.
      Secularism swept away everything. The last thing to take is their genders, and they are taking that now

      • Richard

        True, gender distinction is what they are attacking.

        The good thing is that this experiment will fail unto itself and will be conquered by stronger, more traditional societies. The bad news is this is that this is America we are losing… “The Flower in the bed of weeds that is human history.”

        • KNH777

          Not to be overly religious
          But i find it to be very interesting how Christians have deposited so much into communities, and withdrew little, yet hated. The hate is an affirmation to me that God is real, Jesus promised “you will be hated for my name” and christians are hated.
          Christians are targets everywhere, in America too.

          The Coming Day of the Lord:
          Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?
          For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
          through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

          But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

          A New Heaven and Earth:

          But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

          Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

          Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation

          • Richard

            Thank you for that. It is appreciated.

        • block_and_bloc.dot

          Until the civilization of machines comes to the foreground.
          Humans will be produced like any other manufact: industrially.

          There’ll be no need for sexual acts, and then for sex, any longer.
          No doubt they’ll engineer humans to be sexless at all: think what increase in productivity, and how the NASDAQ will skyrocket then 🙂

          ..

          What can halt them?

          A new version of communism, will the destruction of any intelligence and culture it inavoidably carries with it.

          • Richard

            Hmmm, heavy thoughts.

  • KNH777

    Mormons belief is many wives, so to him he hs not met his belief of many wives. And also I am not saying the law cant gove the gay couple or even the mormon a law that allows practice of beliefs, i am saying it cant be a matter if discrimunation thereby forcing either of these beliefs on all others! Though in the case of mormons, many wives are married by force into it, so id say the law should not grant for the rights of the women!
    The gay couple is consensual, a civil union marriage would be purely for the benefit of the gay couple. And should not be for the force onto all others. So in that case a law of exception for the benefit of 1 that has minimal to no impact on others, would compare to, some religious people do not believe in immunizations. Depending on public safety, a law of exception may exclude from immunizations.
    A break out in measles though may recind, for public safety. Or may limit their exception. Like they can opt out of all but measles etc
    Law when made, should be neutral.
    Forcing it against beliefs of all, the only fair law is exclusive, but not on all!
    So if gov gave exclusive to the gay couple. The couple can enter the state marriage contract. And register with state and federal for all benefits of marriage partnership! Such as buying a home in joint tenancy, or inheritace, survivorship, or medical benefits.
    And community and churches participate by personal choice, not force. Which on a happy occassion, why would you want a photographer there all day who clearly feels forced. Wouldnt you choose a photographer that is there under his own accord??
    So couple is celebrating tying their union!
    Go to a baker, 1 says “i cant, religious reason Muslim, Christian whatever,” great no penalty, no hate crime, no throwing icing! Baker didnt thow baking pans at them!
    Couple goes to another baker, and their glad to.
    Great no one is hurt.
    We all suffer unhappy moments in stores. We may leave bugged or pissed, hapoens all the time! For a few minutes, or maybe it makes our whole day lousy! But there are no scars.
    The baker saying “I cant” was upsetting, but not tragic!
    But her being dragged to court is tragic, her being fined is tragic, and her closing her business is devastating!
    The gay couple being told “I can’t do it” what is the life altering damage here. Its nothing less tha ambulamce chasing! Why do you think thats an acceptable match of damages?
    Supreme Court breech of church and state. Its damaging tk communities and divisive, and negative for gays also!
    Law against all created a dynamic for breaking a law that should only exist for the gay couples benefit, not to incriminate people for religious beliefs!!

  • Richard

    Start by boycotting JP Morgan Chase.

    The Leftist Agenda and propaganda and social engineering:

    I just saw this commercial.. JP Morgan Chase selling loans. The
    commercial shows a man in drag going into his daughter’s party and she
    sees him in drag and smiles and gives him a loving hug and all is well
    and beautiful as he is an open-minded man.

    Question 1: Could they have achieved the same result commercially and with warm glowing hearts if a father dressed as man in a traditional clothing as a real father
    waled in and said to her “You look beautiful, Little Princess.” Same
    smiles, same hugs, same warm feelings, without social engineering.

    Question 2: If they did this solely for commercial market share and since
    transgenders are less than 1% of the population, then why use this a
    vehicle for their commercial?

    Question 3: Do you think this is an attempt at Social Engineering?

    • KNH777

      Theyd prefer to make a statement!
      Lets not support them!!

      • Richard

        It sure seems that way…

        • KNH777

          Entertainment Disclosure

          Force entertainment producers to disclose! And if the advertisers want yo make a statement, then we shouldnt buy their things, entertainers the same!

          Forcing values and morality and content is not acceptable, if there is no
          where to walk away from it!

          But grand moms and other heterosexuals of every walk of life have to stop watching TV all together, or be a captive audience!.

          Forcing people like grandmothers to stare at the walls if they want to avoid being offended and to get away from displays, unsolicited, gay sexual content that dominates the entertainment industry and is now found in every TV program, and forced on us, scenes are purposely twisted to display gay sexuality even if not needed or fitting of the story line! All of us including our grandmothers are forced into being a captive audience, or get rid of our TV entertainment!

          Seculars in the TV industry would rather make a statement to a captive audience then to respect others. They need to be held accountable!

          If TV writers are going to make a statement that we do not want to see, on every program, in a way that literally feels forced down our throat then it’s fair to force them to disclose it and warn us before we decide to watch their show!

          Then we can actually decide if we want to watch it, before we watch 3 episodes instead of making us a captive audience! If gay scenes are put on all of them, we can’t choose something different!

          They should be, and hopefully we can force it to be required and put content of unnatural romantic relationships and sexuality with its frequency on disclosures!

          That way they can be responsible for appropriate content in context!

          And we can choose to watch the show they produced or not to.

          If 40 % of people decide not watch then they can decide to make a statement, or make a TV show!

          Seculars have zero respect for ANYONE ELSE in society, because they are the only ones that matter.

          To seculars, grand mom isn’t a face, she is just “religious establishment” and no face, no responsibility, no respect, and pure selfishness are justifiable because all these people from every walk of life aren’t faces!

          The 10 Commandments offend a few who scream “tear it down” it offends them. But they can leave the courthouse and not see it the 10 Commandments again until they return to the courthouse!

          • Richard

            I agree that we should have more above-board discussions rather than subliminal propaganda.

    • block_and_bloc.dot

      A friend of mine would comment: “You think too much”.

      I am more sincere, id est: less polite, and say: you think.

      It’s not healthful, maybe.. 🙂

      • Richard

        Hehe, lol

    • glenbo

      >”Question 3: Do you think this is an attempt at Social Engineering?”<

      Exactly what is being engineered?

      • Richard

        An acceptance of transgenders and cross-dressing men as A-OK parents, and liberal agenda in general.

        I don’t have a problem with debate about the topic. There are, I suppose, rational statements that can be made about what a good parent is or isn’t, and if a man dressing as a woman is an indication, one way or the other.

        But it should be rational and objective. Propaganda plays on emotions and uses stories to convey larger principles while skirting the details of the particular agendas. It should not be done. Certainly, you would object to a commercial add selling a product that made a portrayal of gay couples as bad parents, would you not? You would say it unfairly portrays. So does this ad, just in the other direction.

        If you want touchy-feely, have a Marine in uniform coming home to hug is daughter, or a father helping a daughter with an injured stray kitten… It doesn’t need to go into social engineering issues.

        • glenbo

          I have 4 question:

          >”An acceptance of transgenders and cross-dressing men as A-OK parents”” liberal agenda in general.”<

          3) What is your definition of “liberal agenda?

          4) Do you understand exactly what gender dysphoria is?

          • Richard

            We are getting off topic into the specific issue in the commercial. My comment was on if it is proper to use propaganda within an emotional context. It is clearly wrong to let the puppet-masters shape society as they want.

            1) A discussion in itself. Too much debate in a sub-comment. I’m not saying it isn’t a valid question, but you need to post it as separate discussion with lots of inputs from many people.

            2) It warms their agenda. Interestingly, I wrote an article on that very subject and received many compliments from left leaning readers…. how ironic.

            https://disqus.com/home/channel/theconservative/discussion/channel-theconservative/conservative_policy_analysis/

            3) See ans #1

            4) I get that there is a dysfunction and that it does not mean they are all perverts or child molesters. I never said they were, and I don’t think most are. Again, my comment is about puppet-masters trying to change society using subterfuge.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            my comment is about puppet-masters trying to change society using subterfuge.

            Which actually is rather a good answer to #3 after all.

          • Richard

            Great point! I missed that….

          • glenbo

            >”1. A discussion in itself.””An acceptance of transgenders and cross-dressing men
            as A-OK parents,””2. https://disqus.com/home/channe…”3. See ans #1”
            ”4. I get that there is a dysfunction”” my comment is about puppet-masters trying to change
            society using subterfuge.”<
            Exactly who are these “puppet masters?”
            What is this “changing of society” you speak of?
            What is the trickery/deception involved in this so-called change?
            What is the purpose of all this, I.E. what is the desired
            result of all this?

            Summary of my questions:

            1.) [re.1] Rephrase: Do you think all trangenders are bad
            parents only because they are transgender? Yes or no.

            2.) [re.3] Please clarify the correlation as to what
            constitutes good or bad parenting and having a “leftist agenda.”

            3.) [re.4] What is your definition of dysfunctional?

            4.) [re.4] Exactly who are these “puppet masters?”

            5.) [re.4] What is this “changing of society” you speak of?

            6.) [re.4] Why is “changing society” bad?

            7.) [re.4] What exactly is the trickery/deception (subterfuge) involved in this so-called change? And…

            8.) What is the purpose of all this, I.E. what is the ultimate
            desired result of all this "agenda," "subterfuge," "propaganda," and "shaping of society? In other words, what is the goal?

          • Richard

            A lot here Glenbo….

            1. Bad parents? I don’t know. I lot of people do a lot of weird things behind closed doors, and yet ostensibly that are respectable people, and I realize that those adjectives are subject to interpretation. I believe in live and let live. However, as an author many years ago wrote in an article titled “A Toast to Hypocrisy” (George Will perhaps)…. people have always don e decadent things… just use a little decency and keep it behind closed doors and maintain proper appearances in public. I suppose that is the conservative position, whereas the liberal view is that they should flaunt it in public as a political statement.

            2. It’s opinion. If you think leftist philosophy is good for America, then you don’t think leftists are bad parents.

            3. Dysfunctional in this context is having a body that does not fit the person. IT doesn’t work, it is a misfit. It is dysfunctional.

            4. Great question. If I knew I’d probably be dead. A lot of TV shows. movies, commercials, etc all tend to push liberal social themes in their selection of actors, story lines, etc. I get that Hollywood is openly liberal, but I doubt that so many titans of business, of companies that advertise are leftist, yet their commercials are… for example, the Chase commercial. So there must be a central authority that is pushing this. They say we have freedom of speech, yet the federal government regulates access to the airwaves via the FCC,so ultimately these producers are held to the whims of the FCC, ostensible checks and balances aside. I know for fact from those in the industry that the federal government has mandated a certain percentage of black male actors in commercials, for what its worth.

            5. Look around. Just as we are debating points to try to sway each other in an effort to change society in some way that we want, those in power do too… and their stakes are much higher. Just human nature I suppose.

            6. Depends on the change. “Change” is not always better. History shows that societies have at times moved in bad directions with subsequently dire results. Isn’t it good to fight change that one perceives as bad?

            7. You might want to google the “Techniques of propaganda.” You will see that advertising employs all the time to sell their products. The political machine of course does too. Way back when I was in 8th grade, a teacher pointed out these techniques, and I’ve never looked at things quite the same since. It is a shame so many people are influenced by these manipulations.

            8. Great question. If I knew, I probably be dead. History shows that those in power use their power, and that the goal of governments is to govern. How do they do it? Any way they can. Manipulation of the masses is certainly a tool that has been used and documented throughout history.

          • glenbo

            Thank you for your response.

            In summary of your answers, I have gathered the following:

            1.) You don’t know and yet your previous statement: >”An
            acceptance of transgenders as A-OK parents,”< was politically charged in a negative prejudiced manner and is without merit as to factual evidence. Enough said…for now.

            2.) Your opinion of being a “good parent” hinges strictly on
            one’s political orientation. This is not a good way to judge anyone. And this isn’t what living in a democracy should represent. The “it’s my way or the highway” mentality is discriminatory, biased, divisive and un-American.

            3.) Your view of who or what is acceptable hinges strictly
            on your assessment of what you perceive as “correct” which appears based solely on their political orientation and those who fail to meet your expectations are to be rejected based on very little understanding of their overall character and merits.

            4.) You have no idea, yet you throw the term around as a weapon to slay that which fails to meet with your approval of what you have already decided is correct with no regards for the needs and free will of the rest of society with which you must share this planet.

            5.) I look around and I need many others with needs and free
            will desires just like you. I have witnessed history very recently where this has come true for millions, but I have not seen many on the opposite of this “change” suffer at all. For example, with the rapid advancing of LGBT rights, I have seen only good come of it and no bad. The only effect of this “change” is the betterment of the well-being for millions of LGBT people and the destitute under the current “leftist” regime. How can improving the well-being of millions be bad?

            6.) Refer to my response to 5.

            7.) You don’t know and are weaponizing terminology to support your bias and agenda.

            8.) So you cannot identify any “leftist” or LGBT agenda, yet
            again you weaponize terminology to support your conservative goal.

            Feel free to respond to any of the above, but I would
            respectfully like to pose two follow up questions:

            {A.} As per your perception of “change” being a negative
            thing, How can improving the well-being of millions be bad?

            {B.} As you clearly have demonstrated a strong and seemingly intolerant polarized world view between Conservatives and Liberals, What is your goal?

          • Richard

            A. Where are you getting that I said undergoing change is bad. I said specifically that I hope these people find what they are looking for…

            B. Understanding between the two and practical middle-ground solutions.

          • glenbo

            >”A. Where are you getting that I said undergoing change
            is bad.””6. Depends on the change. “Change” is not
            always better. History shows that societies have at times moved in bad directions with subsequently dire results. Isn’t it good to fight change that one perceives as bad?””B. Understanding between the two and practical
            middle-ground solutions.”<

            I find it difficult you truly desire to “understand” the
            differences.
            From what I gathered, you have already determined
            conservative control of America is superior to “leftist” ideology.
            I don’t see what it is that you need to “understand,” but I
            do see clearly that you have some sort of goal in mind that you have chosen not to reveal.

  • KNH777

    I hope NC Governor hands in there!

    Im actually starting to think lgbtqi is the mark of the beast
    6 letters 6 colors in their flag and they are lovers of self. 6 is the day man was created.

    Here are more businesses that support lgbtqi. They signed a letter giving NC Governor pressure.

    Laura Alber, President and Chief Executive Of icer, Williams­Sonoma, Inc.
    Rick Anicetti, President and CEO of The Fresh Market
    Karen Appleton, Senior Vice President, Box
    James Avery, CEO, Adzerk
    Brandee Barker, Cofounder, The Pramana CollectiveMarc Beniof , CEO, Salesforce
    Thomas J. Benton, CEO, Direct Marketing Association
    Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.
    Michael Birch, Founder, Blab
    Ed Black, President and CEO, Computer & Communications Industry Association
    Paul Black, CEO, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
    Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, The Goldman Sachs Group
    Nathan Blecharczyk, Cofounder and CTO, Airbnb
    Neil Blumenthal, Co­founder and Co­CEO, Warby Parker
    Steven R. Boal, CEO, Quotient Technology Inc.
    Alex Boden, General Manager, Plum Organics
    Ron Boire, CEO, Barnes and Noble
    Lorna Borenstein, CEO, Grokker
    Brad Brinegar, Chairman and CEO, McKinney
    Craig Bromley, President, John Hancock Financial
    Michael Bronner, President, Dr. Bronner’s
    Lesley Slaton Brown, Chief Diversity Of icer, HP Inc.
    John Bryant, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Kellogg Company
    Ursula Burns, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Xerox Corporation
    Wes Bush, Chairman, CEO and President of Northrop Grumman
    Mandy Cabot, Co­Founder & CEO, Dansko
    Mike Cannon­Brookes and Scott Farquhar, co­CEOs, Atlassian
    Lloyd Carney, CEO, Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.
    Marc Casper, President and CEO, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
    Safra Catz, CEO, Oracle
    Brian Chesky, CEO, Airbnb
    Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, PVH Corp.
    Giovanni Colella, CEO, Castlight Health, Inc.
    Wendy Collie, CEO, New Seasons Market
    Ron Conway, Founder and Co­Managing Partner, SV Angel
    Tim Cook, CEO, Apple
    Roger W. Crandall, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Of icer, Massachusetts Mutual Life
    Insurance
    Scott Custer, Chief Executive Of icer, Yadkin Bank
    Paul T. Dacier, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, EMC Corporation
    Bracken P. Darrell, CEO, Logitech
    Dean Debnam, Chairman and CEO, Workplace Options
    Mike DeFrino, Chief Executive Of icer, Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants
    Donna DeMaio, President and CEO, United Guaranty Corporation
    Bill Demchak, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Of icer, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
    Chad Dickerson, CEO, Etsy
    Alex Dimitrief, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, GE
    Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and TwitterLynne Doughtie, Chairman and CEO, KPMG LLP
    Sandy Douglas, Executive Vice President & President, Coca­Cola North America, The Coca­Cola
    Company
    Martin Eakes, CEO, Self­Help
    David Ebersman, Cofounder and CEO, Lyra Health
    Laurence D. Fink, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, BlackRock
    Randy Fiser, CEO, American Society of Interior Designers
    Blair Fleming, Head, RBC Capital Markets, U.S.
    Jared Fliesler, General Partner, Matrix Partners
    Vince Forlenza, Chairman, CEO and President, BD
    Kenneth C. Frazier, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Merck
    Mark Gainey, CEO, Strava Inc.
    Christopher Gavigan, Co­Founder/Chief Products Of icer, The Honest Company
    Joe Gebbia, Cofounder and Chief Product Of icer, Airbnb
    Dave Gilboa, Co­founder and Co­CEO, Warby Parker
    Jason Goldberg, CEO, Pepo
    Kristen Koh Goldstein, CEO, BackOps
    Mitchell Gold, co­founder and chair­man, Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
    John H. Graham IV, President and CEO, American Society of Association Executives
    Peter T. Grauer, Chairman, Bloomberg L.P.
    Logan Green, CEO, Lyft
    Mike Gregoire, CEO, CA Technologies
    Paul Graham, Founder, Y Combinator
    John J. Haley, CEO, Willis Towers Watson
    Peter D. Hancock, President & Chief Executive Of icer, AIG
    David Hassell, CEO, 15Five
    Gerald Hassell, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, BNY Mellon
    Charles H. Hill III, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources, Pfizer Inc.
    Dick Hodgin, Co­Owner and Chief Engineer, Osceola Music Inc.
    Reid Hof man, Chairman, LinkedIn
    Robert Hohman, Cofounder & CEO, Glassdoor
    Lane S. Hopkins, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Of icer, Capital One Financial Corporation
    Mark Hoplamazian, President and CEO, Hyatt Hotels Corporation
    Drew Houston, CEO, Dropbox
    Stephen R. Howe, Jr., U.S. Chairman and Managing Partner, Americas Managing Partner, Ernst &
    Young LLP
    William H. Howle, President of U.S. Retail Banking Group, Citibank
    Steve Huf man, CEO, Reddit
    Chad Hurley, Cofounder, YouTube
    Dave Imre, Partner and CEO, IMRE
    Dev Ittycheria, President & CEO, MongoDB
    Richard Jenrette, Founder, Classical American Homes Preservation Trust
    Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson CollectiveMichael O. Johnson, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Herbalife
    Kim Jordan, Founder & Executive Chair, New Belgium Brewing
    Cecily Joseph, VP Corporate Responsibility and Chief Diversity Of icer, Symantec Corporation
    Steve Joyce, CEO, Choice Hotels International
    Travis Kalanick, CEO, Uber
    David Karp, Founder and CEO, Tumblr
    Travis Katz, Founder and CEO, Gogobot
    Fred Keller, Founder & Chairman, Cascade Engineering
    Alan King, President and COO, Workplace Options
    Dave King, CEO, LabCorp.
    Tom Klein, CEO, Sabre
    Klaus Kleinfeld, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Alcoa Inc.
    David Kohler, President & CEO, Kohler Co.
    Brian Krzanich, CEO, Intel
    Joshua Kushner, Managing Partner, Thrive Capital
    Michael W. Lamach, Chairman and CEO, Ingersoll­Rand plc
    Stefan Larsson, President and Chief Executive Of icer, Ralph Lauren Corporation
    William P. Lauder, Executive Chairman, The Estée Lauder Companies Inc.
    Ralph Lauren, Executive Chair and Chief Creative Of icer, Ralph Lauren Corporation
    Jef Lawson, Founder, CEO and Chairman, Twilio
    Matthew Lepore, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chief Compliance Of icer, BASF
    Corporation
    Max Levchin, CEO, Af irm
    Tom Linebarger, Chairman and CEO, Cummins Inc.
    Dion Lim, CEO, NextLesson
    Frank Longobardi, CEO, CohnReznick LLP
    Shan­lyn Ma, CEO, Zola
    Elie Maalouf, Chief Executive Of icer, The Americas, InterContinental Hotels Group
    Vishal Makhijani, COO, Udacity
    Tom Mangas, CEO, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
    Rose Marcario, CEO, Patagonia
    Rob Marcus, Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable
    Bill Maris, CEO, Google Ventures
    Marissa Mayer, President and CEO, Yahoo
    Melody McCloskey, CEO, StyleSeat
    F. William McNabb III, Chairman & CEO, Vanguard
    Apoorva Mehta, Founder and CEO, Instacart
    Douglas Merrill, CEO, Zestfinance
    Dyke Messinger, President and CEO, Power Curbers Inc.
    Chris Meyrick, Chief Diversity Of icer, American Express Company
    Steve Mollenkopf, CEO, Qualcomm Inc.
    Bob Moritz, US Chairman and Senior Partner, PwC
    Denise Morrison, President and Chief Executive Of icer, Campbell Soup CompanyBrian Moynihan, CEO, Bank of America
    Oscar Munoz, President and CEO, United Airlines
    Hari Nair, Vice President and General Manager, Orbitz.com & CheapTickets.com
    Christopher J. Nassetta, President & Chief Executive Of icer, Hilton Worldwide
    Michael Natenshon, CEO, Marine Layer
    Alexi G. Nazem, Cofounder and CEO, Nomad Health
    Alexis Ohanian, Cofounder, Reddit
    Laurie J. Olson, EVP, Strategy, Portfolio and Commercial Operations, Pfizer Inc.
    Bob Page, Founder and CEO, Replacements, Ltd.
    Doug Parker, Chairman and CEO, American Airlines
    Mark Pearson, CEO, AXA Financial Inc.
    Mike Pedersen, CEO and President, TD Bank, N.A.
    Michelle Peluso, Strategic Advisor and former CEO, Gilt
    Christine Perich, CEO, New Belgium Brewing
    Lars Petersson, President, IKEA US
    Sundar Pichai, CEO, Google
    Mark Pincus, Founder and Executive Chairman, Zynga
    Mary Powell, CEO, Green Mountain Power
    Hosain Rahman, CEO, Jawbone
    Michael Rapino, CEO & President of Live Nation Entertainment
    Bill Ready, CEO, Braintree
    Evan Reece, CEO, Liftopia
    Stan Reiss, General Partner, Matrix Partners
    John Replogle, CEO, Seventh Generation
    Walter Robb, co­CEO, Whole Foods Market
    Chuck Robbins, CEO, Cisco Systems
    Virginia M. Rometty, Chairman, President and CEO, IBM Corporation
    Dan Rosensweig, CEO, Chegg
    Patricia Rossman, Chief Diversity Of icer and HR Communications, BASF Corporation
    Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and Chairman, Alleycorp
    Bijan Sabet, General Partner, Spark Capital
    Brian Samelson, CEO & President, eMaint Enterprises, LLC
    Julie Samuels, President, Engine
    George A. Scangos, PhD, CEO, Biogen
    Charles W. Scharf, Chief Executive Of icer, Visa Inc.
    Paula Schneider, CEO, American Apparel
    Steve Schoch, CEO, Miramax
    Dan Schulman, President and CEO, PayPal
    Howard Schultz, Chairman and CEO, Starbucks
    Adam Shankman, Director and Producer
    Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association
    David A. Shaywitz, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Of icer, DNAnexus
    Behshad Sheldon, President and CEO, Braeburn PharmaceuticalsBen Silbermann, CEO, Pinterest
    Brad Smith, President and Chief Legal Of icer, Microsoft
    Jostein Solheim, CEO, Ben & Jerry’s
    Arne Sorenson, President and CEO, Marriott International
    David Spector, Cofounder, ThirdLove
    Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO, Yelp
    Yancey Strickler, CEO, Kickstarter
    Jerry Stritzke, President and CEO, REI
    John G. Stumpf, Chairman and Chief Executive Of icer, Wells Fargo & Company
    Julie Sweet, Group Chief Executive North America, Accenture
    Christopher J. Swift, Chairman and CEO, The Hartford
    Bret Taylor, CEO, Quip
    Todd Thibodeaux, CEO, CompTIA
    Brad Tilden, CEO, Alaska Airlines
    Brian Tippens, Vice President, Chief Diversity Of icer, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
    David Tisch, Managing Partner, BoxGroup
    Nirav Tolia, Cofounder and CEO, Nextdoor
    Ed Townley, CEO, Cabot Creamery
    Kevin A. Trapani, President and CEO, The Redwood Groups
    Mark Trudeau, President and Chief Executive Of icer, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
    Paul Van Deventer, President & CEO, Meeting Professionals International
    Ken Wasch, President, Software & Information Industry Association
    Casey Wasserman, Chairman and CEO of Wasserman & President and CEO of the Wasserman
    Foundation
    Bob & Harvey Weinstein, Co­Founders and Co­Chairmen, The Weinstein Company
    Devin Wenig, CEO, eBay
    Tim Westergren, Founder and CEO, Pandora Media, Inc.
    Anne Wojcicki, CEO, 23andMe
    Robert Wolfe, CEO, CrowdRise
    Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO, Facebook

  • SquirePraggerstope

    OK, none of that addresses a single point I raised. It’s just an absolute reassertion of your earlier remarks that amount to ”there’s no argument to be had”. That your own worldview is 100% correct and everyone else must conform to it. If their consciences will not permit that, you and your sad posse of self-righteous, sanctimonious bigots will resort to any measure you can bring to bear to break them and drive them out of business.

    I note too your totally fallacious argument re this example that you cite

    And getting back to Jack Phillips of Masterpiece cakes, he agreed to make a cake for a heterosexual couple KNOWING that they had committed 9 sins…such as fornication, adultery, divorce, working on the Sabbath, etc. He AGREED. Where did his faith go when he was dealing with a heterosexual couple that admitted to multiple sins?

    His faith clearly ‘went’ nowhere, as anyone really qualified to write a theological analysis (are you sure you are qualified to do so??) could easily explain. Whether or not the couple in question had committed 9 sins or 99 sins is utterly irrelevant. Mr Phillips, if a Christian, would maybe deplore them but would also accept that it was not for him personally to impose a retrospective punishment. The important consideration was that the couple in question were now going to do something Mr Phillips faith teaches is ‘good’. Accordingly he would have no difficulties, or even take joy, in helping them.

    Barronelle Stutzman otoh, faced a different problem entirely, By providing a cake for a same sex wedding she would have been condoning, affirming, even becoming complicit in the future commission of what her faith teaches is a sin. You have no answer to this. You merely assert that

    she is NOT “facilitating” anything. This is a bogus defense the courts reject time and time again. A cake is nothing but a pastry product; flowers are merely a floral arraignment. Neither has the capacity to “facilitate” anything legal or moral.

    Which is incorrect as to fact in any case. Firstly, Stutzman did not argue about facilitation. She argued right not to engage -not to be involved. Secondly, the courts have not rejected that defence ”time and time again” because as yet there have not even been many cases and most of those are ongoing or moving to appeal. It’s also incorrect as to interpretation because of course such things ‘facilitate’ a celebration.

    While your self-righteous assumptions about the florist herself

    ..foolish and utterly false assumption exists only in her small and weak bigoted mind.

    are palpably false.

    Barronelle Stutzman, the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has served and employed people who identify as homosexual for her entire career.

    https://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/state-of-washington-v.-arlene-s-flowers-inc.-and-barronelle-stutzman

    The only religious bigot here, the only fool, the only intolerant clown given to making crass and utterly unsupported assumptions, is you.

    So I was amused to note also that you do not examine any of the other examples I provided where conscience could plausibly be advanced in justification for refusal of service. This is no surprise as I actually put them there to test just one point. Your understanding of the concepts I raised with you. It seems then that you do indeed grasp those concepts, at least somewhat, and your immense but largely repetitious reply that omits to consider any of them illustrates clearly the bigotry and hypocrisy that fuels your p.c. new leftist quasi-faith. The fact then that you of all people have the gall to assert

    How do you define “moral values/perspectives? How can you possible determine never mind regulate this? You step into dangerous territory here.

    is perhaps the most risible aspect of all. For your entire approach to this issue amounts exactly to that. The definition of a single, absolute, ungainsayable morality, namely your own, and its uncompromising, pro-active imposition on all others without exception.

    Well, Glenbo, I have to tell you that in doing so it’s you and the rest of your repugnant, censorious ilk who are stepping into dangerous territory. For whereas I and the vast majority of people consider this type of issue amounts to an unfortunate collision of incompatible rights that must be resolved sensitively and via pragmatic compromise to ensure both are upheld substantially, your approach is just to denigrate one party absolutely while extolling the other absolutely.

    The p.c. new left bigots are not the first set of self-appointed directors of others thoughts and you won’t be the last, but none prevail for very long. Freedom and individual liberty always reassert themselves and will outlast your petty, sententious cult. Your poundshop peroration only serves to make me laugh, you pathetic little turd.

    the problem isn’t with LGBT people as you cannot demonstrate they do anything wrong,

    I’ve never said it is as a general proposition. I don’t see people, any people as being divided rigidly into convenient groups ready to all be labeled iaw some single defining characteristic. So blanket statements like yours merely strike me as ludicrous. Of course some have done wrong. A few mincing, self righteous hypocrites shamming offence for compensation, for example. A small number of starey-eyed activists determined to impose their view of right and wrong on everyone else. If you think these gruesome slimeballs are representative, you’re in cloud-cuckooland.

    As for

    the problem is religion

    hahahahahahahahaha. How fatuously, over-simplistically infantile can you get??

    • glenbo

      >” you pathetic little turd.””condoning, affirming, even becoming complicit.”<

      This is utterly false. Utter BULL$HIT.

      But I digress.

      Since you have resorted to lies and personal insults to
      defend your obvious inaccurate and loosing points…because when one resorts to insults and character assassination one reveals one is intellectually and factually bankrupt and is obviously desperate… I am done with you. But who cares at this point as we are at an impasse.

      But I will ask just one last question:

      What would have happened to the cake maker or florist if he/she just made the damn cake or flower arrangement?

      • Well you are a pathetic shit,
        You have yet to refute anything anyone here has posted, all you keep saying is you will use the courts to force your immoral beliefs on us

      • SquirePraggerstope

        Since you have resorted to lies and personal insults

        Oh, my poor, tiny, delicate, faultless badly-done-by treasure! I suppose I should maybe have some qualms about having toyed with you for so long but frankly, your sententious arrogance and dishonesty make all such considerations moot. Besides, you’re hardly exceptional in that regard; just another head-two-feet-up-his-own-arse p.c. zealot in a now very long series of online laboratory specimens I’ve found it informative to dissect. You need not even have bothered editing out your own invective before accusing me of arg. ad. hom. Your talent is rudimentary and I’ve a long-since acquired immunity in any case. still, thankyou at least for the quirky comedic inputs…

        They have already been addressed and debunked in great detail in my book.

        Priceless! That would be the magnum opus discussed above, I assume? The theological masterpiece in which Genesis 6 and 7 is interpreted with dazzling insight as the Supreme Being’s predilection for infanticide and support for abortion? A fascinating construction indeed and one that brought to mind an online operatic parody of another self-imagined literary giant who’s portrayed warbling

        ”I wrote a masterpiece of Gothic Fic-ti-on,
        It sold two copies so I face evic-ti-on..”

        So ’nuff said about your ”book”. To return instead to the sterile assertions

        Selling a cake to a gay couple for their wedding ceremony is NOT as you erroneously put it as well as the AFA, NOM, Focus and FRC has long ago: >”condoning, affirming, even becoming complicit.”<

        It’s clearly all three. The definition of condone is ”approve or sanction, especially with reluctance. To accept the enactment of something considered morally wrong.” Affirmation involves ”agreeing with or consenting to a statement or request.” and may be used also to describe ”offering emotional/moral support.” While complicity is ”the fact or condition of being involved in others’ activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.”

        Clearly by accepting an order for something defined explicitly as a ”wedding” cake, the supplier is condoning that definition wrt the associated proceedings, is agreeing to the request to supply on that basis and implicitly supporting the parties intention. Thereby involving themselves, contractually in fact, in its commission; -despite considering it morally wrong.

        You see, Humpty, sorry and all that but words do not after all mean whatever you may find it convenient that they mean at any given moment. Rather, they mean what they mean all the time, whether you like that or not. As the examples I supplied of instances where conscience may be invoked to justify refusal of service, also illustrate,

        The gunshop owner selling ammunition to a customer who informs him that he’s going to use those rounds (albeit hopefully just the first one) to commit suicide, is clearly affirming that intention and is thereby complicit in facilitating the death. As indeed any law enforcement agency would’ve maintained in the days when US law accounted suicide (or more practically, attempted suicide) to be a felony.

        The anti-bloodsport skeet shooting supplier selling shotgun cartridges to someone insisting they’re after Wood-Pigeon is clearly condoning that use and thereby becoming complicit in the committal of what he sees as an immoral act.

        The Marxist Printer who churns out 5.000 promotional leaflets for a Teaparty fundraising bash is condoning the accrual of resources by enemies of the people. He’s making himself complicit in the promotion of oppression and by permitting his own labour to be exploited to such an end, affirming a system he abhors. If he accepts the commission and the $400 fee, and the Teaparty goes on to raise $8,457 from the 66 people who tick ”leaflet” in response to the question ”how did you hear of this event?”, his group leader will make that very clear to him.

        While all you manage in response to any of the plausible cases I advanced is a single inept, casual, but revealing resort to legal technicalism.

        This is purely hypothetical, utterly irrelevant and this is no argument, however, since you brought this up I will address it. If the straight wedding-organizer couple was refused service by a florist for a third party client, a gay couple, the contract is between the organizer and the gay couple. The burden is on the organizers to locate flowers from a cooperative non-bigoted florist. No crime has been committed.

        So what you’re saying is that this time that’s fine because it’s not the principals in person who are being refused. Merely their agents -and that doesn’t matter because they’re straight so no crime has been committed. The fact that the moral basis for refusal is unaltered, that the florist was not refusing to serve gay people but refusing to serve a specific purpose, notwithstanding.

        Firstly then, it’s clear that you see law itself as just another tool to be used when convenient to impose your odious agenda on others. ”Tough; it’s the law -end of argument” says the noble SJW. While still shrieking his head off at ‘invidious’ state law that permits such refusals to serve on moral grounds.

        Secondly, your response also illustrates your commitment to real equality is a sham. ”Straight? Who cares? Not a crime to refuse them!”. Taken in conjunction with the point immediately above it becomes yet more obvious that this is indeed your attitude. Apparently not just refusing but being able legally to refuse a straight person is fine in your peculiar worldview. Even when on grounds that have you baying at the moon when used to justify refusing a gay one. The dismissal is so casual; ”No crime has been committed.” Or Iow, this is ”good” law or at least not ”bad” law. because It permits nothing that you find unjust.

        Why not simply admit the truth? Your real opinion of this issue is that it represents a political opportunity. What you really envisage is using it actively against opponents to force compliance with your own shallow belief system on pain of ruination if they resist. What’s the m.o. Cupcake? A righteous crusade of gay activists assiduously i.d-ing Christian-owned businesses to target with requests for venues and goods and services they know will be refused? Followed up with a sickening little series of publicity stunts where the ”spurned and distraught victims” emote pitifully about their hurt feeeeeellliiinnggs (whaaaaa!) before hailing the ”bigots” into court for a merry wee financial crucifixion session? And if anyone objects? Well, that’s easy. ”It’s the law” you’ll squeak and ”we’re fighting to defend vulnerable people’s rights”, before topping off the entire nauseating sermon with some repulsive, self-righteous ordure such as

        Don’t like gay people? Find a different line of work.

        Yep, how typical of the maggot-minded absolutist bigots of the bien pensant left. How compassionate and how tolerant they are. ”We think your beliefs are incorrect and as we’re always right by fiat of our own absolute, self ascribed moral impeccability, you have only yourself to blame if we destriy your lifework and hound you into the gutter! Our huge, shining consciences are clean.”

        Well,you may find that more difficult than you think. Your British counterparts already have. Re many other issues they’re in full retreat as more and more people see through the sanctimonious justifications to the hate-fueled reality lurking behind. Furthermore most Americans are no less fair and moderate than most of us. The wafer thin excuses, rank hypocrisy and self-puffing attempts at censure by the leftist bigots soon wears the patience of ordinary people thin when they see it for what it is. The US has a far larger population of active, observant Christians than we. They’ll fight back. The laws some states have introduced iaw popular will to counter your politicised SC’s clumsy, ill-considered dictat, are only a first bare step.

        You will lose.

        • Doubt if we will see him back

          • SquirePraggerstope

            I’d be happy enough to take the gloves off now I’ve got his (depressingly bog-standard) version of p.c. SJW opinion. He’s not really tried to argue the ludicrous ”this is just like refusing service to blacks” bullshit yet, or more than one line on the ”refusing to provide goods/services/venues for gay weddings is illegal” tripe.

          • You did a great job here. I always enjoy your perspective from across the pond

          • SquirePraggerstope

            As I’ve said, we’ve had years of this sort of mealy mouthed authoritarianism from the p.c. left.

            Always it masquerades as backing vulnerable victimised minority groups rights
            Always the victim group is pictured as being both homogeneous and blameless
            Always the problem is presented on each issue in a single simplistic argument.
            Always that argument is repeated like a soundbite with only slight variations.
            Always the solution too is simplistic and is also repeated at every opportunity
            Always there’s an ‘unreasonable’ outgroup that’s the sole cause of the problem.
            Always that outgroup is itself a minority yet is never alluded to as such
            Always wider support for the outgroup is due to just one of two reasons
            Always they are the outgroup’s lies or the supporter’s own anti-victim prejudice
            Always that outgroup is wholly culpable and unmitigatedly in the wrong.
            Always that outgroup is therefore entirely responsible if it suffers in consequence of the ”just solution”.

            That’s just the beginning, btw. Call it the ‘basic pitch’ and like all good basic pitches it conforms to KISS and seeks to somewhat preempt the most obvious objections.

            Interesting approach, ain’t it? Bring any vaguely similar episodes to mind?

        • glenbo

          Still waiting for you to answer my question so I can dismiss you and your insults. While I’m waiting for your answer I will respond to selected statements:
          >”The fact that the moral basis for refusal is unaltered, the florist was not refusing to serve gay people but refusing to serve a specific purpose, notwithstanding.”””Straight? Who cares? Not a crime to refuse them!”””We think your beliefs are incorrect and as we’re always right by fiat of our own absolute, self ascribed moral impeccability, you have only yourself to blame if we destroy your lifework and hound you into the gutter! Our huge, shining consciences are clean.””Clearly by accepting an order for something—is supporting the parties intention.”<

          Incorrect.
          By your absurd logic, if I pay taxes to the federal government, I support war.

          But let’s say for argument’s sake your absurdly stupid statement is correct.

          What would have happened to her if she just obeyed the law and fulfilled the order and sold the gay couple their wedding flowers? Would she be in a better or worse position then she is now?
          You conveniently neglected to answer this previously.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Still waiting for you to answer my question so I can dismiss you and your insults…. ….You conveniently neglected to answer this previously.

            I answered it hours ago. It’s a few posts downthread. Ah, I see you’ve found it. I’ll get back to that later.

            Oh, as for the rest. Your ftrst response amounts to ”No, you are!” and is slightly risible in that it’s not immediately apparent how having to go to another baker or florist then using badly framed law forced through by a politicised court to sue the first one for hurting their poor, sensitive feelings, amounts to destroying the ‘traumatised’ p.c. activist / compensation hunter’s lifework. Surely, it comes nearer to fulfilling it?

            The second splat of disjointed, venomous prejudice is especially good though. Not just because the last bit contradicts the first, either.

            However, it’s not the anti-discrimination laws that “destroy their life work.” It’s their corrupted understanding of their chosen ideology. If your so-called religious “beliefs” dictate one must go out of business to be “morally” pure, take it up with your non-existent imaginary god that is telling you this crap. Don’t take it out on the taxpaying public because your so-called “faith” is weak and corrupted and you view money as being more important that your chosen god.

            But also;

            1) -because peculiarly enough I was just giving a foundation course lecture before in SJW bigot ”debating” tactics.

            ”Always there’s an ‘unreasonable’ outgroup that’s the sole cause of the problem. / Always that outgroup is wholly culpable and unmitigatedly in the wrong./ Always that outgroup is therefore entirely responsible if it suffers in consequence of the ”just solution”.”

            So thanks. A wonderful validation of my conclusions

            2) -because only a few days back on this very page you were squeaking away toother posters that you …don’t “hate Christians.” If your foolish presumption is true, then I would hate my Mom, brother, my cousin, many of my friends and my best clients and several of my employees… after which you launch into a lovely ”necessary but not sufficient” type little slimefest about how it’s only the nassty, howwid sort of scripturally literalist Christian who won’t let gays have bumsex in their guesthouses etc that you dislike. Yet here you are performing in delightfully unhinged fashion just downthread

            ”it is irrational to believe in non-existent imaginary invisible sky magicians devoid of any shred of evidence… IRRATIONAL. …crap …exists only in her small misinformed gullible mind and is strictly between her barbaric intolerant filicidal non-existent imaginary pretend god…. …irrational foolish imaginary woes…. …You want to believe in invisible magicians… …imaginary non-existent Jesus… YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM. Take it up with your pretend imaginary god…. …your imaginary non-existent nonsense.”

            Slightly disappointing as I’m sure you could’ve fitted in at least one more ”pretend” and a couple of extra ”barbarics” if you’d really tried, but still, never mind. I just hope your ”imaginary pretend irrational invisible barbaric non-existent Jesus crap foolish sky magician fillicidal god” worshipping mom and other family don’t mind too much having a relative who’s plainly not just more than a tad loosely hinged and an out and out bigot and fanatic, but also clearly a monumental HYPOCRITE, COWARD AND LIAR into the bargain.

            Honestly, just tell your family you think they’re delusional. You’ll feel so much better afterwards at having effortlessly guided them unto the one pure SJW p.c. truth..

            ..and I’m sure they will too!!

            Oh, and PS; I agree. My point was no crime of discrimination would be committed due to 3rd party contract.

            Sorry, but firstly, as explained it wasn’t introduced for that reason. Secondly, if it had been it could still have been valid though you’re legally far too clueless to know that.

            Now, thanks for the entertainment but you’re beginning to bore, so take yourself and your repulsive toytown dogma out of my sight, you hysterical, cretinous morally bankrupt pig’s pizzle.

            This durbar is concluded

          • glenbo

            >”then using badly framed law forced through by a politicised
            court to sue the first one for hurting their poor, sensitive feelings””Always there’s an ‘unreasonable’ outgroup that’s the sole cause of the problem.””Honestly, just tell your family you think they’re delusional.””Sorry, but firstly, as explained it wasn’t
            introduced for that reason.””Now, thanks for the entertainment but
            you’re beginning to bore””This durbar is concluded”<

            Right, then. Cheers, mate.

          • She was not violating any Constitutional law, nor was she practicing discrimination as you call it. You have failed to prove any point here

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Must admit this one’s been more amusing than many of them are. Most would’ve thrown a monumental paddy just above, in fact just like this one did yesterday, but he’s cottoned on to my taking the piss and switched into tear-jerker mode. Excruciatingly embarrassing style, though, ain’t it? He needs to brush up quite badly on his onioncraft.

          • Freedom

            Great observations. True he is quite amusing. Surprised he came back. Will give him a B for effort, but still he get an F for facts, actually lack of
            Do not know if he can brush up, it is obvious he is a SJW, which is why I am surprised he came out of his safe zone

      • SquirePraggerstope

        Finally, to answer this incredibly callous question

        What would have happened to the cake maker or florist if he/she just made the damn cake or flower arrangement?

        Guilt and self-contempt. Humiliation. Mental anguish. Distress that they had not lived up to their own moral conceptions and maybe much worse, that faced with threat of trial and loss they had permitted themselves to be coerced into acceptance of something they think repugnant to their God and had therefore betrayed the teachings of their faith. Something that all evidence suggests they take very seriously indeed in view of what they have actually endured to uphold them.

        • glenbo

          >”Guilt and self-contempt. Humiliation. Mental anguish. Distress that they had not lived up to their own moral conceptions “<

          OH MY GAWD!! Really???
          I see.
          So NOTHING would have happened to her, NO lawsuits, NO fines, NO boycotts, NO threatening e-mails and defamatory reactions from the public. She CHOSE this. It's HER fault this wrath befell her, as things would be business as usual for her otherwise instead of her being the poster child for anti-gay hate and bigotry.
          She did this to herself for NO rational reason, as it is irrational to believe in non-existent imaginary invisible sky magicians devoid of any shred of evidence.
          IRRATIONAL.

          This crap you describe…this "agony" exists only in her small misinformed gullible mind and is strictly between her barbaric intolerant filicidal non-existent imaginary pretend god.

          Absolute BULL$HIT. All judges have rejected this stupid argument perceived of "harm".

          We are now back to square on in this idiotic debate that I have wasted far too much time with.

          Why are you bothering a rational society with these irrational foolish imaginary woes?

          You want to believe in invisible magicians that murder children and cause you emotional distress if you don't reject your fellow man contrary to what imaginary non-existent Jesus taught?
          YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM.
          Take it up with your pretend imaginary god.

          Don’t bother the rest of us who live in the REAL world that ACTUALLY exists with your imaginary non-existent nonsense.

          This proves religion is seriously messed up and forces people to act like total a$$holes for NO RATIONAL REASON.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Oh. right. I see. That’s a stunning little manufactured tantrum btw and the rabid summary dismissal of about 6/7ths of humanity’s belief systems is even more entertaining.

            (bit too hammy for a Brit, mind, but that’s OK. One knows you SJW’s in particular, with your profoundly sensitive empathic gift of understanding, nay, of practically experiencing all other people’s deep feelings and your capacity for universal, non-judgmental compassion, are apt to be given to strong emotionalism)

            Still, nice to know there’s no reason for the poor gay victims to feel hurt or offended at being discriminated against or personally slighted. As the whole thing’s down seemingly to poor delusional fantasists with irrational beliefs involving non-existent sky magicians, mature rational people like them will realise that and feel it inappropriate to feel slighted and sue.

            So no need for compensation then! Eh?

          • glenbo

            >” the rabid summary dismissal of about 6/7ths of humanity’s belief systems””One knows you SJW’s in particular, with your profoundly sensitive empathic gift of understanding, nay, of practically experiencing all other people’s deep feelings and your capacity for universal, non-judgmental compassion, are apt to be given to strong emotionalism”” Still, nice to know there’s no reason for the poor gay victims to feel hurt or offended at being discriminated against or personally slighted.“”and feel it inappropriate to feel slighted and sue”<

            So the Attorney General felt “slighted?” Again, WHO filed the lawsuit? Is that why the Attorney General brought the lawsuit?

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Shootin’ fish.

            It’s not really recommended that writers of saccharine auto-encomiums tap out little self-congratulatory assessments of their work immediately after finishing the main onion job itself.

            So the Attorney General felt “slighted?” Again, WHO filed the lawsuit? Is that why the Attorney General brought the lawsuit?

            No, the AG brought the lawsuit because he was vindictively determined to pot the ”incorrect”-thinking florist, but only after good old ACLU had convinced the ”distraught” and sLigHTeD VICTIMZ to sue.

            http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/why-true-marriage-equality-matters-to-us/

            Worth your reading that, y’know. Not only might it finally prompt you to get your facts straight before you make an arse of yourself posting tripe. Also, those two fairies can write a real tear-jerker and maybe it’ll help you improve on your own current, toe-curlingly embarrassing efforts.

          • glenbo

            >”Still, try not to feel too upset”<

            Well –what’s an LGBT rights supporter to do.

            We have both obviously long ago made up our minds and we
            are both unchanging in our worldviews and it is futile to continue this foolish debate, as you obviously hate gays for no logical or rational reason and I cannot respect people who hate others for no logical or rational reason. We will never agree.

            But well played, sir. Your persistence is admirable,
            though devoid of rationale, as there is no rationale in denying LGBT people the right to marry.

            According to your Seattle Times news story link, (thank
            you) it appears there are now two lawsuits against her; criminal and civil. She’s in for tough times ahead. Thank you for correcting me.

            It will be interesting how this (these) lawsuit(s) turns
            out regardless of who is suing her and why.

            Seems like the gay couple want to make some kind of
            example of her, with which I disagree. There’s no need for them to file a civil suit, as mere boo-hoo feelings and feeling “slighted” are stupid excuses to resort to extreme behavior, so for once we actually agree on something.

            But however the lawsuit(s) turn out, as she is likely to
            lose since she cannot bring her imaginary god to court to defend her feelings, she is, however, as you pointed out much better off.

            At least she can rest assured that she is free from “guilt,
            self-contempt, humiliation, mental anguish and the distress of not living up to her own moral conceptions.”

            She obviously made a wise choice to defend her feelings. I
            commend her for her boldness, as it was all so obviously well worth it, as the alternative of feeling slighted by selling wedding flowers for a conceived to be immoral cause would be devastating for her feelings and subsequently her
            business and ultimately her life and livelihood if she had done so.

            In the end, she did the right thing (for her feelings) and
            she is obviously much better off.

          • SquirePraggerstope

            as you obviously hate gays for no logical or rational reason

            I’ve never quite been able to decide whether the p.c. leftist bigot’s ability to assess others’ perspectives and reach unshakable conclusions that are almost invariably utter and total bollocks, is irritating or just hilariously funny. Either way, it’s consonant with their narrow, simplistic, ideologically infarcted and terminally self-righteous binary worldview; so I suppose at least it’s not unexpected.

            While ploughing through the lumbering attempt at sarcasm that follows, prompts only the thought that my own earlier remarks on SJWs and irony must now be considered irrefutable.

          • glenbo

            >”I’ve never quite been able to decide whether the p.c.
            leftist bigot’s ability to assess others’ perspectives and reach unshakable conclusions that are almost invariably utter and total bollocks, is irritating or just hilariously funny.”<

            Are you saying you support LGBT rights?

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Gods! You’re so predictable I could shove a brush handle up your arsehole and with the aid of a few lengths of string, convert you into a stick puppet. Do you honestly imagine you’re somehow achieving anything with your Janet & John level forensic technique, my tiny Poundshop Cicero?? So,

            -having plucked the bog-standard leftist p.c. crap out of the air about my somehow ”obviously” hating homosexuals because I support the right of religious adherents whose faiths teach same sex ‘marriage’ (as they define marriage) is impossible, to decline on grounds of conscience to engage with such events,

            -and having seen me ridicule your accusation thoroughly as the unwarranted, arrogant bullshit it undoubtedly is

            -you now pop back up, not to retract or even to ask the natural follow-on question, but instead merely to parrot out the next bog-standard leftist p.c. crap line in the program

            Are you saying you support LGBT rights?

            as though it constitutes the penultimate line in some definitive process of proof by deduction.

            Well, sorry but it doesn’t. Because NO, I do not ”support” what YOU would undoubtedly mean by ”LGBT rights” at all.

            Nor for that matter do I support ”women’s” or ”black” or ”Muslim” or ”disabled” rights. Nor any of the mealy-mouthed, bogus contradictions in terms and spurious euphemisms like”positive discrimination” or ”representative quotas” or ”opposition to ‘profiling”’ or ”affirmative action” that go with them.

            At least not as the canting, fanatical hypocrites of the dogmatic left misdefine them in their attempts to reclaim a myriad tiny eyots of sterile ”identity politics” premised exceptionalism from the ocean of human equivalence. Rather in the same way that China’s attempting to dump enough shit in the sea to create her own entirely artificial islands. Which she can then claim as terra nullius with the aim of extending her exclusive maritime resource and security zones.

            What I support, you see, are individual rights and freedoms. Real, equal rights and freedoms for real, equal people -all people. Namely, the accrued contemporary corpus of freedoms and rights that descend to us from their narrower but consonant beginnings in English Common Law. That were codified formally, first under Henry Beauclerk then dictated to John at Runnymede. That were re-stated in the Bill of Rights of 1689. That then were given arguably their highest expression in written form less than a century later in the Constitution of a new res publica born in a war fought to defend them. That of The United States of America.

            The freedoms and rights, iow, that have been continuously re-asserted and re-applied in light of economic, technical, political and social evolution, and revolution, as new situations arose that bore upon their equitable exercise. That in consequence of this need are enshrined in a vast and still growing corpus of case law today on both sides of the Atlantic; -and both sides of the Pacific too. In short, and for purposes of guidance, the freedoms and rights most recently compiled as a coherent summary in the Code of Terra Libra.

            Freedoms and rights that are non-selective, accessible, of practical application and which cannot of their nature be easily subverted and skewed hypocritically to serve covert, sectional political agendas.That are not ”bestowed” on us by a beneficent state exercising its prerogative to gift some or all of its chattels with a few shallow advantages. That instead, are deemed to arise inalienably from our own nature as self-aware, intelligent individual beings and so represent our prerogative as masters to limit the power of our servant, the state. As a demos, collectively iaw the popular will, yet also and far more importantly, in our own right as free individuals too.

            So, what of specifically ”LGBT rights”? Well, rant your stupid head off if you must, but as you think of them, they do not even exist.

            Yet that in no way means I hate homosexuals. I do not, and I ascribe to each and every one of them, equally, every last right and freedom I do to everyone else Nothing more and nothing less.

          • glenbo

            >”What I support, you see, are individual rights and
            freedoms.”<

            So do you believe same-sex marriage should be legal for gay
            couples?

          • SquirePraggerstope

            If you mean an equal civil union conferring exactly the same legal status in secular law including re tax and testamentary provisions, yes. If the official terminology for that is ”civil marriage” and that’s what appears on the certificate in cases of both same and opposite sex unions, -fine by me.

            If you mean though that should oblige religious adherents who happen to run businesses to recognise it as a valid ”marriage” and/or be obliged to furnish goods or services or venues for its enactment, then NO. Nor for that matter would I agree they be obliged to recognise opposite-sex unions they do not consider to constitute a valid marriage. Whether they choose to acknowledge neither, either or both is purely a matter for their own conscience.

          • glenbo

            I have 7 questions:

            >”If you mean an equal civil union””If you mean though that should oblige religious adherents who happen to run businesses to recognise it as a valid
            ”marriage” and/or be obliged to furnish goods or services or venues for its enactment, then NO.””Nor for that matter would I agree they be obliged to recognise opposite-sex unions they do not consider to constitute a valid marriage.”<

            6) What is your definition of a “valid marriage?”

            7) What is your definition of “recognize?”

          • SquirePraggerstope

            NO threatening e-mails and defamatory reactions from the public.

            Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, they get a few of those but they tend to be all from people like you so I don’t think it bothers them much, tbh.

            Being Christians, I suspect their first impulse will be to pray for you. Who knows? In view of that last post of yours, they may have a point if the fan mail’s in any way similar, eh?

          • glenbo

            >”Being Christians, I suspect their first
            impulse will be to pray for you. Who knows?”<

            If I was a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto or Buddhist, whatever, I wouldn’t see the point in wasting my limited energy and time “praying” for those who simply failed
            to be indoctrinated into an ideology that is 100% devoid of any evidence of its existence.

            I would much prefer to “pray” for the lives of the 10 to 20,000 children that die daily in the absolute absence of the caring and acting and “loving” of a so-called non-existent imaginary invisible magical “creator” …

            https://www.change.org/p/21-000-children-die-needlessly-each-day-let-s-make-it-zero

            http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html

            http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/epidemiology/profiles/neonatal_child/npl.pdf?ua=1

            …who apparently stands uncaring, inactive and unloving with arms folded.


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmQns78FR8

            Even better yet, charitable contributions to these causes will actually tangibly accomplish way much more than “prayer.”

            Yet far too many so-called “Christians” such as you are far too busy obsessing and fixating on what consenting adults are doing with their genitalia in the privacy of their bedrooms and insisting the government must intrude upon them.

            How sick.
            How disgustingly creepy.

            What ever happened to minding your own business?

            What ever happened to caring about those who truly need to be cared for? As Jesus taught?

          • SquirePraggerstope

            Yet far too many so-called “Christians” such as you are far too busy obsessing and fixating on what consenting adults are doing with their genitalia in the privacy of their bedrooms

            I’m an atheist. I thought I’d said that days back when you were blethering on about your ridiculous book?

            Oh, and personally, I don’t give a fig about how the Oscar and Bosie fanclub, or for that matter anyone else get their kicks -subject only to the provisions of the ”Mrs. Patrick Campbell Doctrine”

      • What is wrong snowflake, sorry but this is not some liberal safe space where you can come and listen to an echo chamber. Here is the real world where you will be called out on your lies .

        • glenbo

          >”Here is the real world where you will be
          called out on your lies.”<

          There is nothing “real” about a non-existent imaginary invisible magician.

          The “real” world, where rational people exist is protected…via the 1st amendment (the establishment clause)… from nut cases that believe in invisible sky magicians who feel entitled to act like a$$holes in the secular world (that actually exists) based only upon “belief” in a non-existent imaginary sky wizard that murdered children and condones slavery.

          Just like ISIS, Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, you are free to believe in and worship whatever non-existent imaginary murder-condoning god you wish as per
          the 1st amendment (the free exercise clause) you are not entitled to act as you wish in violation of secular law.

          • See, you cannot help yourself. Your intolerance and ignorance demands that you attack something you cannot understand.

            Tell you what hater, keep your hate, but do not cry when we attack you for what you are doing

    • He will have nothing to counter this with

  • No you did not realize that until you were corrected . And they are not anti-gay bigots as you have yet to prove that claim

    He was not denied, the business owner did not want any part in the actions he was engaging in

    The Courts did not find her guilty of Discrimination

    Government is supposed to protect freedom, not intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith and conscience

    As for the outcome of the case it is before the WA Supreme Court, so really no decision has been made, sorry but you cannot go by the decision of a gay judge and AG, in fact those who are going after the Florist can be justifiably attacked by other people defending the florists position. And again this goes to your side and your use of force, well two can play that game, so the AG and the Judge are fair game at this point

    As well as people like you, you are a legitimate target because of your hate and intolerance