Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All for 3%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Brexx View Post
    To you and your ilk I may seem lost. I'm normal and you guys have lost track of what normal is. I don't think I ought to mate with another man instead of a woman. I understand that that makes me seem weird to you folks. I don't think I ought to be a woman either. I guess that means I'm really lost to your way of thinking.
    We think we are God when we imagine that we can change reality by our use of words.

    Saying that two men can get married, or that two women can get married is no less idiotic than saying a car is a boat and believing one can drive it to Hawaii.

    Declaring oneself to be the opposite sex despite the facts of biology, is infantile, ridiculous & irrational. It isn't a truth in reality.

    Now, the American Psychiatric Association says gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The World Health Organization agreed until just a short time ago. Whether it is or not, the fact remains that special treatment simply points out the problem rather than alleviates it. What will happen if a child says he doesn't think he should have legs (body dysmorphia)? Will the school provide a wheelchair for such a child? What if a kid thinks he is still an infant (infantilism)? Will playpens and diapers be provided? This is indeed a denial of reality, and these oh, so tolerant parents are demanding that their children be educated to believe that reality doesn't exist.

    ...


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_prairie.html


    Originally posted by Brexx View Post
    That comes under the heading Individual Freedom, something classical liberals - which you claim to be - are very big on. So it looks like you are the one who is lost. You don't even know what you are much less where you are. lol
    Rover isn't a classic liberal. He is a hard leftist on the extreme fringe.

    The outlandish crazies... like this fellow


    He told WJLA that he doesn't have a problem with paedophilia and added: Like, if it's in the context of a marriage, then it, I think it's usually fine."

    Barber asks bluntly: Even if you're 10?"

    The would-be politician responds: Yeah, I think it would be fine. Probably."

    The Huffington Post has also reported his campaign website shared an IP address with chatrooms that talked about paedophilia and raping women.

    The politician's views are reminiscent of calls made by in the 1970s in the UK by Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned to legalise child-sex.


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/643955...-sex-children/

    Originally posted by Brexx View Post
    I also think that if you make something for a living, let's say cakes for example, and somebody comes along who wants you to make something that you don't want to make for whatever reason you should not be required by law to make it.
    No, you shouldn't be forced to participate in things that are against your faith. It has always been so in America until today, when we attempted to remake reality by playing games with words... and we're surprised that we've made bigger trouble for ourselves than we imagined ??? LOL

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Justice Kennedy created the "right" of two men or two women to "marry" out of thin air several years ago, and now he is making up the law as he goes along. He has not yet decided how far this newly created right goes, and since he is unmoored by the framework of the Constitution, he is choosing, for now, to decide these disputes on a case-by-case basis. This is what happens when you abandon an established body of law and operate based on feelings. Not only do you throw out consistency, but you make it hard to apply the law consistently because there is no consistent law to apply.

    Homosexuals have been free to pursue relationships with each other for a long time. What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._decision.html

    ================================================== ==========

    This was a fight that was provoked by the militant political gay movement. They targeted a religious baker and chose this guy to make a case. They could have gone any bakery in Colorado. They could have gone to any bakery in Denver. They could have gone up and down the interstate anywhere they wanted. They could have found somebody who would have happily baked them a cake,

    But they didnt do that. They targeted somebody that they knew wouldnt bake them the cake or thought wouldnt bake them the cake because this is how the left operates. The thing to take away from this is what the left wants. The left is anti-liberty. The left is very comfortable denying anyone who disagrees with them their freedom, including constitutional freedoms,

    "...Imagine how you would feel today if itd gone the other way, if by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court they had ruled that Christian religious freedom essentially doesnt exist or didnt in this case,

    I mean, the left would have been on this, and they would have been marching into every religious business they could find and challenging it, starting late this morning, certainly early this afternoon. They would have been out there doing everything they could to maximize this. So, as far as that even though its just an individual case the Supreme Court stood up for religious liberty, First Amendment in a major, major way.



    http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/limbaugh-..._orig=politics

    ================================================== ==========


    To demand that everyone bow to the idol of gay greatness when that isnt necessary is an unambiguous declaration that the religious beliefs of Americans arent as important as the beliefs of gays. Declaring that 2% of Americans, the gays, have the right to impose their beliefs on 72% of Americans, Christians, is clearly hostile to Christians.


    ..in all the cases where authorities have tried to force people to go against their faith, there have always been many bakers, photographers, etc. who were more than willing to provide services to the gay wedding.

    Demanding that the one person whose religious beliefs say that he should not support a gay wedding do so when there are so many others to choose from is prima facie evidence that the authority is hostile to the persons religious belief.

    ..asserting that some other baker who doesnt object to baking a cake for a gay wedding provide a cake instead of forcing the one baker whose religious beliefs preclude his participation is a very reasonable and nonintrusive accommodation.

    After all, if an Orthodox Jew and a Catholic work at a business that is open on Saturday and Sunday, wouldnt it be a clear sign of hostility if the owner refused to let them switch work days so that the Jew didnt have to work on Saturday and the Catholic didnt have to work on Sunday?

    Hence any authority that rejected the reasonable accommodation is clearly hostile to the person whom they refuse to accommodate and to the rationale that that person is using to ask for an accommodation. Which in this case is their religious beliefs.

    What the Supreme Court didnt say is that if there is no one who is willing to provide a service to a gay wedding someone couldnt be forced to do so despite their religious beliefs. While they should have ruled that a persons religious liberty is not up for discussion given the clear wording of the First Amendment, the reality is that in America today even in the Bible Belt there are no shortage of individuals willing to provide every imaginable service for gay weddings.

    Hence the reality is that the narrow ruling is very wide, since the only exception would be when no one will provide services to gay weddings.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ow_ruling.html

    ?


    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      We think we are God when we imagine that we can change reality by our use of words.

      Saying that two men can get married, or that two women can get married is no less idiotic than saying a car is a boat and believing one can drive it to Hawaii.

      Declaring oneself to be the opposite sex despite the facts of biology, is infantile, ridiculous & irrational. It isn't a truth in reality.

      Now, the American Psychiatric Association says gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The World Health Organization agreed until just a short time ago. Whether it is or not, the fact remains that special treatment simply points out the problem rather than alleviates it. What will happen if a child says he doesn't think he should have legs (body dysmorphia)? Will the school provide a wheelchair for such a child? What if a kid thinks he is still an infant (infantilism)? Will playpens and diapers be provided? This is indeed a denial of reality, and these oh, so tolerant parents are demanding that their children be educated to believe that reality doesn't exist.

      ...


      https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_prairie.html




      Rover isn't a classic liberal. He is a hard leftist on the extreme fringe.

      The outlandish crazies... like this fellow


      He told WJLA that he doesn't have a problem with paedophilia and added: Like, if it's in the context of a marriage, then it, I think it's usually fine."

      Barber asks bluntly: Even if you're 10?"

      The would-be politician responds: Yeah, I think it would be fine. Probably."

      The Huffington Post has also reported his campaign website shared an IP address with chatrooms that talked about paedophilia and raping women.

      The politician's views are reminiscent of calls made by in the 1970s in the UK by Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned to legalise child-sex.


      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/643955...-sex-children/



      No, you shouldn't be forced to participate in things that are against your faith. It has always been so in America until today, when we attempted to remake reality by playing games with words... and we're surprised that we've made bigger trouble for ourselves than we imagined ??? LOL

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Justice Kennedy created the "right" of two men or two women to "marry" out of thin air several years ago, and now he is making up the law as he goes along. He has not yet decided how far this newly created right goes, and since he is unmoored by the framework of the Constitution, he is choosing, for now, to decide these disputes on a case-by-case basis. This is what happens when you abandon an established body of law and operate based on feelings. Not only do you throw out consistency, but you make it hard to apply the law consistently because there is no consistent law to apply.

      Homosexuals have been free to pursue relationships with each other for a long time. What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it.


      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._decision.html

      ================================================== ==========

      This was a fight that was provoked by the militant political gay movement. They targeted a religious baker and chose this guy to make a case. They could have gone any bakery in Colorado. They could have gone to any bakery in Denver. They could have gone up and down the interstate anywhere they wanted. They could have found somebody who would have happily baked them a cake,

      But they didnt do that. They targeted somebody that they knew wouldnt bake them the cake or thought wouldnt bake them the cake because this is how the left operates. The thing to take away from this is what the left wants. The left is anti-liberty. The left is very comfortable denying anyone who disagrees with them their freedom, including constitutional freedoms,

      "...Imagine how you would feel today if itd gone the other way, if by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court they had ruled that Christian religious freedom essentially doesnt exist or didnt in this case,

      I mean, the left would have been on this, and they would have been marching into every religious business they could find and challenging it, starting late this morning, certainly early this afternoon. They would have been out there doing everything they could to maximize this. So, as far as that even though its just an individual case the Supreme Court stood up for religious liberty, First Amendment in a major, major way.



      http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/limbaugh-..._orig=politics

      ================================================== ==========


      To demand that everyone bow to the idol of gay greatness when that isnt necessary is an unambiguous declaration that the religious beliefs of Americans arent as important as the beliefs of gays. Declaring that 2% of Americans, the gays, have the right to impose their beliefs on 72% of Americans, Christians, is clearly hostile to Christians.


      ..in all the cases where authorities have tried to force people to go against their faith, there have always been many bakers, photographers, etc. who were more than willing to provide services to the gay wedding.

      Demanding that the one person whose religious beliefs say that he should not support a gay wedding do so when there are so many others to choose from is prima facie evidence that the authority is hostile to the persons religious belief.

      ..asserting that some other baker who doesnt object to baking a cake for a gay wedding provide a cake instead of forcing the one baker whose religious beliefs preclude his participation is a very reasonable and nonintrusive accommodation.

      After all, if an Orthodox Jew and a Catholic work at a business that is open on Saturday and Sunday, wouldnt it be a clear sign of hostility if the owner refused to let them switch work days so that the Jew didnt have to work on Saturday and the Catholic didnt have to work on Sunday?

      Hence any authority that rejected the reasonable accommodation is clearly hostile to the person whom they refuse to accommodate and to the rationale that that person is using to ask for an accommodation. Which in this case is their religious beliefs.

      What the Supreme Court didnt say is that if there is no one who is willing to provide a service to a gay wedding someone couldnt be forced to do so despite their religious beliefs. While they should have ruled that a persons religious liberty is not up for discussion given the clear wording of the First Amendment, the reality is that in America today even in the Bible Belt there are no shortage of individuals willing to provide every imaginable service for gay weddings.

      Hence the reality is that the narrow ruling is very wide, since the only exception would be when no one will provide services to gay weddings.



      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ow_ruling.html
      I don't know why the bakers just didn't do what I used to do when I painted houses during the summer. When it came to jobs I really didn't want to do I'd give such a high estimate they would decide to look elsewhere. Of course I wasn't trying to make a statement about the homeowners sinful life style.

      ?


      • Well, I dont see how you could, given your remarkable display of all you DONT understand about Christianity.

        ?


        • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
          Well, I dont see how you could, given your remarkable display of all you DONT understand about Christianity.
          That's right the right to pass judgement on the sinful lifestyle of others is reserved to people who worship in the church of Trump.

          ?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post

            That's right the right to pass judgement on the sinful lifestyle of others is reserved to people who worship in the church of Trump.
            Ahem "... given ALL that you don't understand about Christianity."

            ?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

              That's right the right to pass judgement on the sinful lifestyle of others is reserved to people who worship in the church of Trump.
              I notice you passing a lot of judgement on people. Where does your right come from? And don't say free speech cuz I know you don't believe in that.

              ?


              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                I notice you passing a lot of judgement on people. Where does your right come from? And don't say free speech cuz I know you don't believe in that.
                I tend to judge people true. I do it because I can. At least until one of the moderators decides my constant attacks on the emperor is just too sacrilegious to tolerate any longer.

                ?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  I tend to judge people true. I do it because I can. At least until one of the moderators decides my constant attacks on the emperor is just too sacrilegious to tolerate any longer.
                  So, for the same reason a dog licks his balls.

                  The only reason you can is because we have free speech - that right that you enjoy for yourself but don't want others to have. If you were in Russia badmouthing Putin you would be scheduled for a leap off a tall building.

                  ?


                  • Strange that liberals and the "LGBTQRST" crowd want us to be tolerant and inclusive so they can be bigoted and hateful.

                    .. and yet

                    Hatred always loses !

                    It's sometimes a tough battle, but hate always loses.

                    The hateful are being seen for what they are.

                    Tools, useful idiots. It won't last.

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                    "The intolerance of the LGBTQ ideology toward any alternative views is mind-blowing. The tactics of some in the LGBTQ movement toward dissent is an existential threat to freedom of expression. The lack of tolerance for disagreement, which has been replaced with bullying Twitter mobs promising 'consequences', should be a concern regardless of your political stance." The LGBTQ community then proved him exactly right and demanded his termination. CrossFit bowed to the mob and terminated Berger for daring to express his personal views on his personal Twitter presence.

                    ...Christians in America are, like Russell Berger and Jack Phillips, going to be increasingly targeted by the mob for trying to live their faith publicly.

                    Christian pastors in America who devote a Sunday each year to preach on life in response to Roe v. Wade should spend just as much time preaching on why marriage is between one man and one woman and why Christians, like Polycarp, Berger, Phillips, and others should stand strong for their faith even when the world around them demands otherwise.


                    https://www.dailywire.com/news/31662...ign=benshapiro

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                      Strange that liberals and the "LGBTQRST" crowd want us to be tolerant and inclusive so they can be bigoted and hateful.

                      .. and yet

                      Hatred always loses !

                      It's sometimes a tough battle, but hate always loses.

                      The hateful are being seen for what they are.

                      Tools, useful idiots. It won't last.

                      ----------------------------------------------------------------

                      "The intolerance of the LGBTQ ideology toward any alternative views is mind-blowing. The tactics of some in the LGBTQ movement toward dissent is an existential threat to freedom of expression. The lack of tolerance for disagreement, which has been replaced with bullying Twitter mobs promising 'consequences', should be a concern regardless of your political stance." The LGBTQ community then proved him exactly right and demanded his termination. CrossFit bowed to the mob and terminated Berger for daring to express his personal views on his personal Twitter presence.

                      ...Christians in America are, like Russell Berger and Jack Phillips, going to be increasingly targeted by the mob for trying to live their faith publicly.

                      Christian pastors in America who devote a Sunday each year to preach on life in response to Roe v. Wade should spend just as much time preaching on why marriage is between one man and one woman and why Christians, like Polycarp, Berger, Phillips, and others should stand strong for their faith even when the world around them demands otherwise.


                      https://www.dailywire.com/news/31662...erick-erickson
                      History is chock full of Christians who stand ... and have stood ... strong for their faith. It is one of the underlying evidences that Christ is the Messiah since all those who suffered excruciating deaths for following Him could have recanted their faith and been released. WHO does that?!??! No one. Even Jesus, himself, could have been released to resume his ministry if he would just recant what He said ... about God, about himself, about his work ... but He did not. He was beaten, tortured, and killed BECAUSE he wouldn't recant His testimony. So either He was who HE said HE was, or He was a conman (and no conman will EVER go to their death for the con), or he was a lunatic (and no lunatic inspires his followers, down through the centuries, to remain faithful when all THEY had to do to avoid persecution was give up his lie).

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                        History is chock full of Christians who stand ... and have stood ... strong for their faith. It is one of the underlying evidences that Christ is the Messiah since all those who suffered excruciating deaths for following Him could have recanted their faith and been released. WHO does that?!??! No one. Even Jesus, himself, could have been released to resume his ministry if he would just recant what He said ... about God, about himself, about his work ... but He did not. He was beaten, tortured, and killed BECAUSE he wouldn't recant His testimony. So either He was who HE said HE was, or He was a conman (and no conman will EVER go to their death for the con), or he was a lunatic (and no lunatic inspires his followers, down through the centuries, to remain faithful when all THEY had to do to avoid persecution was give up his lie).
                        You turn the other cheek Christians make me sick why don't you get off of your knees and confront your persecutors?Though I do enjoy being bathed in your love.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          You turn the other cheek Christians make me sick why don't you get off of your knees and confront your persecutors?Though I do enjoy being bathed in your love.
                          So, your alleged response is not responsive to anything already written. SO, do you want to take another shot at an intelligent response or are you good as it stands?

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                            You turn the other cheek Christians make me sick why don't you get off of your knees and confront your persecutors?Though I do enjoy being bathed in your love.
                            I take it all back I have noticed how you have fought back heroically against persecution with your noble efforts to counter the nefarious war on Christmas.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              I take it all back I have noticed how you have fought back heroically against persecution with your noble efforts to counter the nefarious war on Christmas.
                              So, your alleged response is still unresponsive to anything already written. I take that as acknowledgement that you have nothing intelligent to contribute.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                                So, your alleged response is still unresponsive to anything already written. I take that as acknowledgement that you have nothing intelligent to contribute.
                                You are the one who brought up the issue of persecution. It should be noted that we liberals haven't thrown a Christian to the lions in years.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X