OT: A WARNING
- Thread starter BingleCocktail
- Start date
- Status
I'm about as far from liberal as you can get. I didn't even watch the OPs video or whatever it was cause I just really don't care but a good sammich thread is something I'm interested in.
I’m not going to get in a back and forth with you about this, this will be the last I post about this because frankly both sides of the isle have taken the culture war too far… but I seem to remember a baker in Colorado losing his business all because he declined to make a cake for a gay wedding.
I never knew Paul Harvey had such a strong opinion about me.
I can't stand tomatoes. In fact, I would campaign for any candidate who was against them. Except sun dried. Those are ok. Oh, and I hate bacon as well.
Yep. And I voted for Trump and probably still will, but I would never use my position as pastor to advocate for him. Pastors need to stick to Scripture and out of politics.
I believe you may be conflating 2 cases. The baker won the case over the customized gay wedding cake, in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia
The same bakery got into controversy again a few years later when a woman placed an order for a strawberry cake with blue icing (just a plain order, not a custom creation), which the bakery agreed to do. After the bakery agreed, she mentioned that the cake was to celebrate her transition from male to female, and the bakery then said they would not make the cake after all. That case hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bakery lost even with a conservative court, since it's hard to argue that she wasn't discriminated against if he would have made the plain cake for her had she not been trans.
Either way, the baker didn't lose his business. Even if he does have to pay a fine for refusing to bake the cake, he's raised more than enough money to cover it. The bakery is still open, with good ratings on Google. You can order a cake from there today if you want:
Does the fact that the guy had to take his case to the Supreme Court not prove my point? Regardless of the outcome.I believe you may be conflating 2 cases. The baker won the case over the customized gay wedding cake, in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The same bakery got into controversy again a few years later when a woman placed an order for a strawberry cake with blue icing (just a plain order, not a custom creation), which the bakery agreed to do. After the bakery agreed, she mentioned that the cake was to celebrate her transition from male to female, and the bakery then said they would not make the cake after all. That case hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bakery lost even with a conservative court, since it's hard to argue that she wasn't discriminated against if he would have made the plain cake for her had she not been trans.
Either way, the baker didn't lose his business. Even if he does have to pay a fine for refusing to bake the cake, he's raised more than enough money to cover it. The bakery is still open, with good ratings on Google. You can order a cake from there today if you want:
My initial post said conservatives should stop being pissed at bud light for the trans thing and left should stop pitching a fit when people don’t participate in pride events. Someone responded to me saying the left does not throw a fit but would rather conservatives or people who don’t want to participate just not participate. The guy apparently had to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court to defend his right to “not participate”. I think that proves my point.
The folks that enter the threads with random topics when a post is clearly political…..are whistling through the graveyard while the country goes down a steep slope into Hell.
Change my mind. Paul Harvey was a modern day prophet. I wish he was around today to say “I told you so”
Change my mind. Paul Harvey was a modern day prophet. I wish he was around today to say “I told you so”
Sure, let's give it a shot.
As already mentioned, the commentary in that video is from the mid-90s so Harvey was commenting on modern day happenings.
Thst isn't being a prophet, it's simply being an observer.
...and now you know the rest of the story. Good day!
You think you’re so cute, don’tcha?
Paul Harvey talked about Christianity will be under attack like nothing we could imagine. He was right. Look around you. Look at what the current Pope endorses. Nobody could have foreseen that. Consider the fact that a radical Muslim can talk about beheading Christians and there is no push back on that. Imagine if it was the other way around
Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they are a Trump backer. I voted Trump because Jeb was no longer an option and there was no way I was voting for the present democrat party. Especially Biden.
with that said, I think most people vote party, regardless of the candidate. The nominee for our US political parties are making decisions and voting in line with that parties stance on issues. No politician is going against his/her own party on any large issues.
I voted Trump. I will vote Trump for the third time in 2024. Not sure why so many people think Trump is so evil. I believe in the America first policies. I believe the deep state and democrats are working together to interfere in elections. Personally, I can't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can dispute that. And if you think Hunter got the full weight of the justice system for his gun crime ask Kodak Black what he thinks. Or ask Wesley Snipes about the tax charge.
You probably could use intense therapy.
This is what people don’t get. The social issues in our society were the same social issues in Rome, and every other civilized society in the past…it’s all a cycle. The difference now is technology, but the people the same.
The “lack of voting access” is a myth created by the far left to suppress actual voters. It doesn’t exist. If you want to place a vote in 2023, you are more than able to.
I eat mayo on everything. BLT for sure. Black
Eyed peas, green beans, banana and mayo sammich. That **** is goooood!
Trump did some great things as president. But to be honest I hope he doesn’t run. I can’t stand another 4 years of liberal and corporate media meltdown. It’s insufferable.
I, for one, am Pro-Bacon.
Nothing against Tomatoes. It’s just that Bacon has more substance and sizzle.
P0RKBARR3L LIBRUL SPENDING IS NOT THE ANSW3R
BLASPHEEMER! HOW DARE YOU TAKE THE AMERICAN ICON AND PROMOTE NPRYou *don’t* like pork?
Why do you hate America?
This is true, and I've always kinda wondered about the logic of the baker. I mean, if you don't agree with LGBT or whatever, shouldn't you be happy to extract money from them, and put it in your own pocket?? I mean, unless you're posting all your cakes on Instagram daily and are scared what your fellow Baptists will say about you next Sunday. But again, if you are, I guess that's the sort of intellect that makes you turn down business on the grounds of sex orientation.
Yeah, just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you agree with everything. That's really stupid logic, and Dems really use that to shame you about Trump/David Duke and stuff like that.
I simply vote for the most conservative candidate, in most elections. Even though I may lean liberal in many areas, I just figure by keeping conservatives in office in the general sense, we at least slow down the degradation and slow toilet bowl swirl. Because again, I look at the totality. Democrats want to do many smart things, but they also want to do too many stupid emotional things for me to get over. I figure the smart things will just come in time, by nature.
Christianity has been under attack for millennia. So has Islam. So has Judaism. Predicting Christianity will be under attack is nearly as easy of a bet as predicting which direction the sun will rise.
I will address your Pope comment with a few thoughts.
- I dont know what the Pope endorses that you take issue with. Is it the nearly 3 year old endorsement of same sex civil unions or something else? I dont keep up with what any of the Popes declare, endorse, or condemn.
- Catholics believe in Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility. So any faith or moral based doctrine that the Pope issues while in capacity as Pope, is infallible. If the Pope says same sex civil unions are OK, then all Catholics need to get on board and open up their hearts and arms to the gays. Thats how it works. Thats how infallibility in the capacity as Pope works. There is no piecemeal to faith. There is no buffet style faith. You believe then you fully believe. To do less is to not believe.
- The guy endorsed civil unions. Specifically, marriage was not endorsed and was instead very much not approved. Like not at all. The Vatican quite clearly stated marriage is a sacrament and the Church does not approve of gay marriage. He said he supported civil unions to allow for inheritance rights and healthcare coverage. Seriously, this is what is so awful that you are claiming it is proof of Paul Harvey being some version of Nostradamus and is an example of Christianity being under attack? Mountain out of a molehill.
I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to no push back on a radical Muslim talking about beheading Christians. That is such an over the top claim that I really dont know how to counter it.
Of course there is pushback when someone talks about beheading Christians. There is pushback when someone talks about eliminating Jews. There is pushback when someone talks about taking out a Muslim.
I cant think of an event that I am aware of where someone has spoken about violently killing another person/persons and pushback didnt follow. Regardless of race, identity, or religion- I have seen/heard/read pushback.
Perhaps you mean something other than pushback when you say pushback? Perhaps the pushback is not what you want to see and you want different pushback? I am unsure because your initial comment is just so far out there and disconnected from reality that I cant confidently guess what you mean.
At this point, I honestly see you as some desperate wife who pays a bad version of Ms Cleo to see into your future. She says 'I see someone who misses you' and you say 'mom?' and she they declares that yes it is your mom and she misses you greatly. You walk away convinced the Ms Cleo knockoff is a 17ing prophet when all that happened was you saw what you wanted to see.
Paul Harvey spoke 50 years ago about things that were happening around him. He then updated it 30 years later and again spoke about things that were happening around him. You see that and apply it to what is happening now as if that was prophetic.
Does he have America first policies, or are they Trump first policies? I firmly believe that any benefits the country saw when Trump was in office was simply a byproduct of his Trump first policies. They just happened to help elsewhere too.
But seriously now, please answer this- who the 17 is the 'deep state'? Like really, who are these people? Yeah yeah you dont know and that is why they are deep state. BS. And why is this supposed deep state working only with Democrats? How have all the Republicans in the military, in Congress, in Judicial, and in the White House over the last 23 years not exposed this deep state? Thats insane.
As for Hunter Biden, I care as much about him as I do Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton. But I think knowingly lying(vs mistake/confusion) on a gun application should result in jail time. I think that, but I also think gun applications should be more strict so I doubt you will like me agreeing.
I wanted to like this for the Harvey part, but goddammit I can't stand pimento cheese on a sandwich.
*sigh* I guess maybe you're talking the actual "parade" itself or something - which is a glorified S&M show - so yes, maybe in that specific case they would rather be left alone to dance and 17 on the street in public. But other than that one possible scenario where they want to be left alone (which I question), the left absolutely does not want to live quietly in peace alongside everyone else. You have to know this.
The left in its many forms demands a response. They demand attention. Actually, more than that, they demand submission. That's what the whole uproar the last few years has been about. They don't really like the responses they are getting.
When I say 'lack of voting access', I mean many things. Some are a myth created by the left and some are real.
- early voting access everywhere with drop stations determined by population density. X # of drop stations per 100K people. It should be easy to vote and this is part of what makes it easy.
- mail in voting legal in all states. The West Coast sends a ballot to everyone regardless of if they requested. The voter can then use it or toss it and vote in person. Double voting is simply not a concern because shocker- its been considered and addressed.
- states should not be able to remove people from voting registration just because the people have not participated in X # of prior voting opportunities.
- in person voting locations are determined by population density. X# of voting locations per 100K people. Again, it should be easy to vote and this is part of what makes it easy.
States have rolled back voting access in the last 4 years and that is messed up. Other states didnt roll back voting access, but their access was actually more restrictive than the states that did roll back access. That too is messed up. New York had, up until very recently, more restrictive voting access than Georgia(pre access change). Liberal New York is also a state I disagree with. I mention this because it clearly runs counter to what you think I was referring to in my earlier post.
I dont give a 17 if a state is blue, red, or purple- voting access should be easy at this point- its 2023. We dont all need to spend a day traveling to the county's courthouse to vote the next day(which is why POTUS election is on a Tuesday) anymore and we dont need archaic and indefensible policies in place that limit voter participation.
- Everyone should, in theory, want high voter participation. If you dont want high participation, you need to ask yourself why and see if you are on the wrong side of the democratic process.
- Everyone should be willing to look at actual statistical results of fraud and error when it comes to various styles of voting and if a style of voting is statistically safe, then accept it as a way to vote. Again, if you look at a statistically safe voting method and dont support it, you need to ask yourself why.
- Everyone should want in person voting to be fast, painless, and secure. If you support limiting in person voting sites in certain areas of a state, you need to ask yourself why you support that since it blatantly works against the democratic voting process we should all want. Nobody wants to wait for 8 hours or even 1 hour to vote, so everyone should support voting site locations based on population density.
I want federal elections to have less variation from state to state because there is far too much inconsistency right now and almost all of it is based on poor reasons like tradition or partisanship.
I want federal election participation to increase, and it increases when voting is easier and more convenient. Anyone who disagrees with that should be looked at with skepticism when they talk about voting access.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Kirk Cousins with 500 yards passing tonight.
- Latest: DesotoCountyDawg
-
Get unlimited access today.