I have only been to Indiana a couple of times. Once as a child when my father took the family to visit a dear friend of his who was a grad student at Notre Dame University, and I drove through there once on my way to Chicago from East Lansing, Michigan. I don't want to offend any of my friends who happen to live in the Hoosier state, but please understand when I say that traveling to Indiana would not have been on my bucket list of things to do if I had never gone there. I mean....it's Indiana.
Now, though, Indiana is getting a lot of attention. And sadly for the people of that state it's for all the wrong reasons.
I bet the governor of Indiana wishes that he could have held back on signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) just a little longer. The poor dude didn't see this backlash coming. It's as if the country that he and his fellow bigots think that they live in changed overnight.
Why just yesterday it was cool to discriminate against people based on race, sexuality, or whatever. Not anymore. It's just not hip to be a bigot anymore.
But before we go piling on Indiana, let's remember that they are not alone. The state of Arkansas is on the verge of signing a similar law, and they still proudly fly the flag that is a symbol of the oppression heaped on my people in South Carolina.
"After much reflection and in consultation with leadership in the General Assembly, I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone,"
That, my friends, is called backtracking.
77 comments:
Christians never cease to amaze me with their persecution complex. Okay, so they're allowed, as religious "freedom," to oppress whoever they want claiming majority status, to throw "God" in everything from our National Anthem to printing it on our money, to outright keep any atheist or Satanist or most Islamic groups from forming in school, and on and on and on. But let an atheist put up a competing idol on a manger scene, or dare to call someone a bigot if that person thinks gays are an abomination, or tell Christians that they can't thrust God on everyone in school, and suddenly America is Stalin and they're being exterminated because of their religion.
Crybabies, all.
This is probably in the top 10 reasons why I'm not religious: I can't stand the hypocrisy and whining!
Christians have had carte blanche for literally thousands of years to rein their brand of terror on the world. But as soon as some people start speaking up and calling bigoted views bigoted, it's all, "Well, where's OUR freedom?"
You had your freedom, fuckers, and rather than acting like Jesus and bringing people together with it, you used the Bible to promote Slavery, to promote Jim Crow, to keep homosexuals oppressed, and other bad shit.
When it's said and done, folks can pray to the sky all they want. Makes me no never mind. But science is the only thing that will save us. And if anyone doubts that, just imagine your life without science.
No lights or electricity, no medicine (that works), no computer for Field's male genitalia-obsessed trolls to rant on, infant mortality rates at over 50%, life expectancy at 40 years old, a basic artery plaque issue becoming a death sentence, and on and on.
Hardcore Christians cling to these beliefs like grim death, say dumb shit like, "Well, it's what I really believe," and use said faith to malign others, to skirt basic logic and anything of an empirical nature, and to basically live vicariously through the Dark Ages while unironically reaping the benefits of a modern world -- a modern world that they had fuck-all to do with. If it were up to these low-IQ adults living their lives based on fairy tales, our biggest modern advancement to date would be a blade sharp enough to sacrifice a goat to cure illness without needing to apply great pressure.
To a hardcore Christian, "religious freedom" means twisting that nonsensical book to oppress and dismiss whatever they don't like with absolute impunity, while simultaneously bitching that Islam and atheists are dragging the world to hell.
When it comes to religion, I wish dumbocrats could treat all religions equally.
Apple CEO Tim Cook doesn't want to do business in Indiana but will happily do business in Saudi Arabia.
It appears not all homophobes are equal to Tim.
Gay Passion of Christ Envisioned and Attacked
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kittredge-cherry/test-gay-passion-of-chris_b_6888978.html
I wonder when dumbocrats are going to do a gay Muḥammad art book.
Not all religions are equal to dumbocrats.
I find it kind of sad that this is what progress looks like in the 21st century, but it is.
A duly elected governor, with help from a duly elected state legislature, passes a stupid, unnecessary, and bigoted law in order to shore up his credentials with the crazy people who make up his party's base (and raise campaign money) and public backlash forces him to consider anti-discrimination legislation to go with it.
It is progress, though, because
A) Lots of other states are passing laws just as bad or worse, and saying to hell with the backlash, and
B) A decade ago the gop was using that kind of legislation to win elections, and was quite successful at it.
-Doug in Oakland
Looks like the GOP Presidential hopefuls are backing this law. The GOP is really looking to be the party of the hyper religious, yeah I know always has been. Anyone not white, straight or Christian need not apply. Let's just admit the gop presidential candidates are running for preacher in chief. As a secular type guy this isn't the way to broaden your party guys but I'm betting they wouldn't like the likes of me anyway. Ha!
Idiot.... Not you this time Whuteemoo, the Gov of Indiana.
Have you, Yisheng, or any of the other righteous morons commenting here read this bill or looked into what it actually said? The bill denies no one their rights; it affirms the rights of people to live by the tenets of their faith.
What exactly is wrong with letting people have religious convictions?
Few people ever refused service to gays at bakeries before gay marriage. There was not some great scourge of people refusing service to gays.
What people are doing is refusing to take part in a gay marriage ceremony.
They are refusing to endorse a political act. Which is their right.
Gays are not being denied cookies or donuts at a bakery. They are only being denied gay wedding cakes, because the latter, unlike the former, constitutes a political act which violates their religious understanding.
If a printer refused to print up "OBAMA IS A KENYAN COMMUNIST TRAITOR" bumper stickers, would the bullies say the person demanding he print those up could compel him to do so by calling the cops?
Of course not, of course not. The Left's conscience is a sacred thing which must never be offended.
While they meanwhile use Police State tactics to obliterate everyone else's.
Josh said...
Christians have had carte blanche for literally thousands of years to rein their brand of terror on the world. But as soon as some people start speaking up and calling bigoted views bigoted, it's all, "Well, where's OUR freedom?"
Wow, dude, you sound pretty objective on this issue. Or perhaps you are just masking a deep hatred of some people's beliefs and trying to pass it off as a matter of principle.
There is no principle behind this hysterical torrent of media and political wrath raining down upon Indiana because the state dared to pass an allegedly anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Just who is really being "intolerant' here?
The zealots are not claiming that we must be tolerant towards all -- that is a principle most could agree with.
No, they are instead claiming we must embrace the things they love, and hate -- and persecute -- the things they hate.
This is not "tolerance." This is, at best, simply the replacement of one set of bigotries and hatreds with the left's favored set of bigotries and hatreds.
Why is the bill necessary? Isn't the freedom of religion already written into the Constitution? C'mon Ace, this is a shout out to the religious right by Republican governors and legislators. Even the governor of North Carolina rightly asked what problem exists for this bill to be necessary? I wonder why Maike Pence couldn't answer a simple yes or no question. Was he pandering or does his bill actually discriminate? Or both.
Josh, "You had your freedom, fuckers, and rather than acting like Jesus and bringing people together with it, you used the Bible to promote Slavery, to promote Jim Crow, to keep homosexuals oppressed, and other bad shit."
Man, you are out-of-control. No one used the Bible to enslave the Blacks. It was pure Capitalism and Racism that did that. So don't blame Christianity for it.
BTW, racism still goes on today, which Chritian values have nothing to do with.
Racism exists because of White People. It's just that simple.
"Racism is a white man's disease."--Einstein
If the law isn't so bad why is the legislator revising it? Did Greg Ballard the Republican mayor of Indianapolis who blasted the law read it? The fact is Republicans wanted to make it legal to discriminate against gays but didn't realize how much things have changed. Nice try, better luck next time.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook doesn't want to do business in Indiana but will happily do business in Saudi Arabia.
It appears not all homophobes are equal to Tim."
That's because the state of Indiana is a democracy, and at least some of the citizens of that state aren't insane. The sensible citizens of Indiana may actually respond when it is pointed out to them that making Indiana into The Homophobe State won't be good for their interests.
The same is not true for Saudi Arabia, which not a democracy but is run by a scummy monarchy. Its rulers don't care what the sensible citizens of the country want (in fact, they tend to jail sensible citizens -- or publicly flog them, or execute them). Also, Saudi Arabia has oil, which is a universally saleable commodity. If we won't buy it from them, someone less scrupulous definitely will.
In other words, there is a shot of changing Indiana's mind, but absolutely no shot of changing Saudi Arabia's. As Otto von Bismarck would say, politics is the art of the possible.
Hello all, this is very interesting and very creative. I hope there is a good response from you, Thank you
Ciri Ciri Vimax Asli dan Palsu
Vimax Canada Palsu Berbahaya
Bahaya Efek Samping Vimax Palsu
Efek Samping Vimax Canada Palsu
Harga Vimax Original Canada
Vimax Canada Original Indonesia
Obat Vimax Herbal Asli Canada
"They are refusing to endorse a political act. Which is their right.
Gays are not being denied cookies or donuts at a bakery. They are only being denied gay wedding cakes, because the latter, unlike the former, constitutes a political act which violates their religious understanding."
I find this to be a really weak argument. Gay marriage is legal in most of the U.S. now, including in Indiana, so gay people wanting to get married aren't engaging in "a political act" at this point. They are exercising their legal rights. They are simply trying to live their lives.
Would you consider a straight person's marriage to be "a political act"?
How about driving to work? How about eating a sandwich? These are all just routine acts in people's lives.
If you are running a bakery, and part of your business is wedding cakes, and only some of your customers are allowed to buy wedding cakes, what else could it be but discrimination?
So Indiana's law very much is a defense of discrimination, and you're not fooling anyone by pretending it isn't.
And freedom of religion doesn't cover the right to discriminate in this fashion. If, as a religious man, you don't like gay marriage, you have a solid 1st Amendment right not to marry another dude. That is where your religious freedom ends. You don't have a constitutional right to use Jesus to punish queers.
has anyone seen PR? Why is she so quiet?
"Wow, dude, you sound pretty objective on this issue. Or perhaps you are just masking a deep hatred of some people's beliefs and trying to pass it off as a matter of principle."
Yeah, it's always something, it seems. If I'm not giving the right-wing religious crew hell and being called an anti-religious bigot, then I'm being called an anti-black racist when I disagree with Field.
Such is common here, so whatever you say I am, I guess I'll be that. It's par for the course here; make a comment, somebody cries bigotry or racism, etc. Whatever.
Maybe some people just can't stomach strong disagreement without projecting on the dissident their own sinister leanings? But I studied literature and evolutionary biology, not psychology, so fuck if I know...
...
"Man, you are out-of-control. No one used the Bible to enslave the Blacks."
Did you really infer from what I wrote that I was saying that Christians used the Bible like some magic spell book to take and hold people captive? lmfao...dude?
But what they did, with their Ham nonsense and insisting Jesus and God were white, and spinning the narrative that slavery was A-OK via their God's will, was to create a precedent for the promotion of slavery being a good Christian thing.
E.g. one could own slaves, beat slaves, rape slaves, etc, and still be considered by the Christian community a good, God-fearing Christian -- because the Bible expressly promotes the keeping of slaves as in accordance with God's will.
That is objective fact. I never said, nor did I imply, that the Bible was used to take slaves, or that without the Bible you don't even have racism. These are wide-reaching inferences that seem to be plucked from the sky -- much like religion, but that's neither here nor there. Suffice to say Christians, for millennia, justified some of the most horrific shit in human history by claiming they were just practicing their beliefs.
It's everyone else who's always supposed to be tolerant of someone just because that someone really, really, really believes something.
We don't show that same respect to a schizophrenic. He really, really, really believes the small green men are out to get him, and he must tear up K-Mart to escape them. Noooo...we lock his ass away. But a grown-ass adult can really, really, really believe there's some omnipresence--a self-defeating premise of consciousness without matter--just existing in infinite limbo passing down judgment, and it's everyone else supposed to respect that.
And just because it's a lot of people believing it. Let's face facts here. If only 1% of people believed in an imaginary sky friend, we'd have them committed. But since religion is roughly 99% cultural (e.g. Pakistanis born Muslims, Alabamans born Christians), it's the rest of us who are forced to accept it as the norm while living in fear that some maniac is going to ruin life based off of what they think an invisible being is telling them.
"Racism exists because of White People. It's just that simple."
1) I reckon it depends if you're defining "racism" in this new, extremely convenient way of race + power, as if to say that no one except white people can ever be racist to begin with! I don't buy into that weasel shit. It's SJW cunty dumbfuckery.
2) In many, many of the lands white Europeans conquered, the native peoples were at habitual war with one another. Tribes slaying other tribes. People X hating people Y. Things like bigotry and racism actually rearing their heads, yet being argued away by hindsight bias as everyday squabbles. White people were simply more efficient at conquering and subjugating people. And having a state-pushed religion that was all-encompassing since Constantine kinda gave them the power via make-believe moral authority to be more widespread with their conquering.
But it's not as if hate and bigotry and violence and murder and, yes, even racism were all strictly "white" things. White folks were just better at it.
While some peoples entire existence was based on seeing only as far as how many slave hearts they could rip out to appease their sun god, white Europeans set their sights broader and thought, "Hey, we appease our god by seizing these lands in its name."
Don't hate the playa...
Inevitably, weak minded blacks equivocate race based oppression to sexuality based discrimination. There hasn't been some 'gay' slavery, or 'gay' holocaust to make amends for or educational or economic segregation or isolation of gays. Yet somehow, the strongest liberty arguments the group makes is based on denial of gov't benefits, marriage and acceptance as 'natural and normal' and blacks stand tall for this. This is not denial of right to vote, equal housing, schools or economic access; this is 'do not look at me funny'. To what end? Are somehow a better country because of this PC mantra? Or is this a real effective distraction from smarter issues? What were the actual damages in an Indiana lawsuit against a gay plaintiff based on this type of legislation? I'll bet it wasn't equal to being denied admission to Indiana state? I digress, it is not PC to point out such things, so I'll get on the PC side of history. The Terre Haute Waffle House cook better not discriminate against Adam and Steve when making that sausage patty melt.
And by the way, tell that Terre Haute Waffle House cook to take off that Jesus piece, stop asking for Easter Sunday off and start playing Macklemore on Sunday. Josh and AceFreely raise very interesting points
Can anyone give just one example of RFRA being used in the 20 or so states to discriminate against teh gays or anyone else?
Just one example....
Gotta love the hypocrisy of the left.
Democrat governors who have RFRA laws in their states won't travel to Indiana.
Democrats are more than happy to travel to countries where teh gays are killed or put in prison because they are gay, won't travel to Indiana.
Don't let a nuclear-armed Iran distract us from America's #1 threat - Indiana bakeries-DP
And freedom of religion doesn't cover the right to discriminate in this fashion. If, as a religious man, you don't like gay marriage, you have a solid 1st Amendment right not to marry another dude
Does freedom of religion cover the right not to participate in the sanctification of of something your religion teaches is immoral?
How intolerant has society become when you can't say to someone "you are welcome in my shop but I just can't in good conscience bake this particular cake for you".
Anybody pull this stunt with a bakery operated by a devout Muslim? How about a cake in the image of Allah? Does your right to get whatever you want from whoever you want mean that the government should compel him to do so?
If a Muslim caterer tells you he's sorry but he can't do pork ribs for your wedding party, do you find another caterer or take him to court to force him to do something that violates his religion? Where do his rights start and your rights end?
All the gay "rights" activists are doing here is forcing people who disagree with their political beliefs to endorse those political beliefs anyway, using the crushing power of the state to compel assent.
This is not about serving gays, this is about acceding to gays' (and non-gay Gay Enthusiasts') demands that those who dissent with gay weddings nevertheless be forced to endorse them.
And that is unamerican -- or, perhaps I should start learning finally, all too American, at least post-Obama American.
this is a shout out to the religious right by Republican governors and legislators.
When Clinton signed it into law, was there a problem with religious people having their rights taken away?
When Clinton signed it was it a shout out to the religious left?
Man, that Josh is something else. But he IS smart and insightful and can see right through human racism. God has given him a great gift....God is good to Josh.
Psst Bill, u so realize that this particular law allows to disputes between two PRIVATE citizens, right?
The wingnut FOX VIEWS talking points u are parroting is not true.
The RFRA of 1993 applies to disputes between a person or their government; not two private citizens.
See the difference?
Glad I could help.Carry on.
What about the RFRAS in the other 20 or so states.
Any examples of legal discrimination under the law?
None? Didn't think so.....
Anonymous Ace Freely said...
All the gay "rights" activists are doing here is forcing people who disagree with their political beliefs to endorse those political beliefs anyway, using the crushing power of the state to compel assent.
This is not about serving gays, this is about acceding to gays' (and non-gay Gay Enthusiasts') demands that those who dissent with gay weddings nevertheless be forced to endorse them.
This is what the gay mafia demands. If you don't agree with them, you will be attacked with smears and lies.
See what the gay mafia is doing in Indiana.
Betrayal: The Obama regime still insists that releasing the top command of our enemy was all about saving Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
But several reports from 2012 reveal that it was secretly negotiating the Taliban Five's release without Bergdahl.
Now that the Army has filed desertion charges against Bergdahl, the administration is under increasing pressure to justify the bad deal.
Astoundingly, it's sticking to its story that President Obama only freed the high-risk Gitmo detainees to free a "POW."
"This was about bringing home an individual that had served his country," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said last week about the 2014 swap.
But IBD has uncovered a series of credible reports from 2012 — as well as a transcript of a candid press conference by then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai — that show the White House originally wanted to give up the Taliban commanders under just one condition: that the Taliban open a political office in Qatar "to conduct peace negotiations." It was Qatar that ended up taking the prisoners.
Bergdahl, who walked off his post and into the arms of the Taliban in June 2009, wasn't even part of the negotiation back then. The original deal was a one-sided release, naked any trade for a "POW" or "hostage" or soldier who allegedly had served "with honor and distinction."
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033115-745969-timeline-shows-obama-lied-about-bergdahl.htm#ixzz3W4cuKfTW
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
More lies exposed... Obamholics won't care. The Obama juice is that good!
Why do so many young adults paint absurd caricatures of Christians who request government protection of their religious freedoms, arguing their true goal is to ban gay men from sitting at the local lunch counter? Why do they spread falsehoods about legislation, insisting that bills like the one recently signed by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will unleash a Republican-led Jim Crow revival aimed at the LGBT community? Why do so many people, Gen Xers and younger, invent a monster of anti-gay bigotry and keep screaming the monster is real despite a mountain of contrary facts standing before them?
The answer is “social studies.” My generation engages in straw men, misinformation, and lies because, in every year of social studies class, we studied the civil-rights movement not as history, but as hagiography. We didn’t just learn what events happened on American soil, we were encouraged to mimic the segregation-defeating holy ones and merit for ourselves a place alongside them in glory. Combining that admonition with our general aversion to hard work, we concluded that the only thing necessary to be as righteous as the saints who fought racial injustice was to decry an injustice that no one else was. And we became so desperate to find that injustice, we lost our minds in the process.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/31/gay-marriage-isnt-about-justice-its-about-selma-envy/
Blogger Josh said...
"Racism exists because of White People. It's just that simple."
1) I reckon it depends if you're defining "racism" in this new, extremely convenient way of race + power, as if to say that no one except white people can ever be racist to begin with! I don't buy into that weasel shit. It's SJW cunty dumbfuckery.
---------------
Dear Josh, let me clarify what I meant. I meant racism exists IN AMERICA because of Whites. Does that help you understand the truth a little more? Glad I could help.
Whites are the least racist people on earth.
If you are not free to discriminate, you are not truly free.
Sooooo this law was created because Christians are afraid they won't be able to wear crosses and ask for Easter off? Really? Since when has this been a problem?
"Since when has this been a problem?"
The Left is working on this.
Looks like the governor of Arkansas thinks the RF bill is discriminatory. He refused to sign it. Interesting times. I think he's just scared of Walmart. Ha!
Yep, there is soooooo many bills being proposed to force people to take their crosses off and stop asking for Easter off. (Don't know if the paranoia or the stupid is a bigger problem with conservatives).
Every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step
Blogger PilotX:Freeing slaves from the Republican plantation since the 70's said...
Sooooo this law was created because Christians are afraid they won't be able to wear crosses and ask for Easter off? Really? Since when has this been a problem?
2:55 PM
==============
Christians have had problems since they became followers of Christ. You should know this.
PilotX:Freeing slaves from the Republican plantation since the 70's said...
Yep, there is soooooo many bills being proposed to force people to take their crosses off and stop asking for Easter off.
Yep. How many times has SCOTUS ruled Obama's polices infringed on religious liberties? 11 Times?
(Don't know if the paranoia or the stupid is a bigger problem with conservatives).
Hard to say with Obama. Since Obama is a conservative-he is both stupid and paranoid.
"I meant racism exists IN AMERICA because of Whites. Does that help you understand the truth a little more? Glad I could help."
Yeah, because if you just snapped your fingers and all white people disappeared, all blacks and Latinos and Asians would get along perfectly, and there'd never be anyone judging another person based off of race. And a majority race in power would never, ever discriminate against a minority race unless it was white people doing it. The thought it could exist without whites is ridiculous.
Everybody'd just hold hands with a Coke and a smile.
White countries are the only countries concerned in the slightest about the rights of minority populations.
Josh, "Yeah, because if you just snapped your fingers and all white people disappeared, all blacks and Latinos and Asians would get along perfectly, and there'd never be anyone judging another person based off of race. And a majority race in power would never, ever discriminate against a minority race unless it was white people doing it. The thought it could exist without whites is ridiculous."
Why do you always bypass white racism with 'speculations' about other races when it is not the issue? The fact is Whites created racism and injustices against Blacks and 'continue' to do so.
How can the problem be solved when folks like you refuse to own up to the problem? That's so sad. Stop your whining and be a responsible adult.
Christians are the majority here in America. The problem is that some people want to have special rights because of their religion. This is almost an exclusive idea feom the right. Republican presidential hopefuls are hosting huge tent revivals and talk like southern preachers. Scott Walker is trying out a new southern drawl and pushing his religious agenda. Let's be clear, if these bills weren't meant to be discriminatory they wouldn't have to be rewritten and they would include protections for LBGT folks. These guys just got caught. If you're hyper religious and want to be allowed to discriminate you are a Republican and are for these bills, if you think everyone should be treated equally then you're not for these bills.
Josh needs Jesus. With Easter just around the corner, it's an opportune time for you to join a church. It will change your life for the better.
PilotX:Freeing slaves from the Republican plantation since the 70's said...
Christians are the majority here in America. The problem is that some people want to have special rights because of their religion. This is almost an exclusive idea from the right.
---
Really? The Left doesn't seek (and get) protected status for its favored groups, including gays?
Race-based affirmative action is not a "special right" for non-whites?
Is a right to decide for yourself what is or isn't moral really that "special", or should it be guaranteed in a free society?
What ALL of you FN posters are missing is the God factor. Are you that blind?
Ace Freely, you are the winner by far!
Is transgenderism a form of mental illness, based on this definition
"A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not a developmental or social norm. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or the rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. Mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. The scientific study of mental disorders is called psychopathology."
Is it the next stoplight past homosexuality? Is heterosexuality the stop before? Or is it the 'bright line' for normal development?
I completely side with Ace. I go a step further. Why even have rules if there are no 'normals'?
Why not have a free for all? If it was offensive 50 years ago, but must be tolerated now, let's make that the rule?
I think the better solution is let the voters of Indiana decide [they have] and let the outsiders stay outside and the chips fall where they may.
The law should not be changed today. Maybe it will 50 years from now
Sure Ace you can decide for yourself if being gay is immoral or not but if you own a business you just can't refuse to serve them. So in short, you can personally be biased but your business can't. We've seen what happens when businesses discriminate and it didn't end well.
PilotX:Freeing slaves from the Republican plantation since the 70's said...
The problem is that some people want to have special rights because of their religion.
Not being religious I don;t have a dog in the fight. I do find the left-wingnut hypocrisy hilarious.
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm
Delivering alcohol or selling birth control.
Only some religions get special treatment from the federal government.
"Why do you always bypass white racism with 'speculations' about other races when it is not the issue?"
Maybe because you're framing a red herring to say that racism = white people. Oh, I dunno -- has that ever crossed your mind as being a stance that someone else might not agree with?
"The fact is Whites created racism and injustices against Blacks and 'continue' to do so."
Sure, in your mind, where the only two races are white and black and the only country to exist in world history is the USA, then I guess you have a solid point. But, alas, you and your vanity do not comprise the entirety of reality nor the center of the universe.
"How can the problem be solved when folks like you refuse to own up to the problem?"
Here, I have no fucking idea what you're babbling about. Did I ever say, or even remotely imply, that white folks were not responsible for things like slavery and Jim Crow? I recall just giving them a shit-ton of fucking grief over it...in this same damn discussion. But, I see -- because I don't proclaim that "racism" is a white invention to hold down tha black man, yo, that means I'm refusing to address the "problem."
"That's so sad. Stop your whining and be a responsible adult."
So, pointing out that "racism" is something that goes beyond white people is "whining," whereas bottling up racism to explicitly and only mean white people fucking with black people is, what? Speaking truth to power?
The idiocy found here never ceases to amaze me.
...
"Josh needs Jesus."
Isn't that the other way around? Not for nothing, but I never forced anyone to carve out stone laws which proclaim people shall worship me and more me and only me.
PX I don't know if I agree that business owners shouldn't be allowed to choose who they serve.
Just imagine me trying to tutor a Whuteemoo in Medical Biochemistry.............never mind, they're too stupid to understand ANYTHING in STEM, ROTFL!!!
"...never mind, they're too stupid to understand ANYTHING in STEM..."
Well, if anyone can teach the "stooopid" to understand incorrectly anything in biochemistry, it would be you. Like basic, entry-level biology terminology that a self-professed braggart of a "doctor" cannot even write correctly. Makes great sense, like a French tutor speaking Spanish.
PilotX:Freeing slaves from the Republican plantation since the 70's said...
Sure Ace you can decide for yourself if being gay is immoral or not but if you own a business you just can't refuse to serve them
No, but you should be able to refuse to make something that you don't want to.
Come in the shop, buy whatever you want that's there, just like everyone else. But you shouldn't be able to force the business owner to make something that he wouldn't make for anybody.
Imagine a black carpenter. He should allow a klan member in his shop who wants to buy the furniture he has made, but should he be forced to make him a cross he wants to burn at his next rally?
Personally, if I were a baker, I would not have a problem making a cake for a gay wedding. I would guess that is the case with 95%+ of the bakeries in America. This is calculated harassment of people to force them to violate their religious beliefs.
A member of a religious minority can, as a conscientious objector, be exempt from taking up arms in wartime. Most Americans would recognize that as the type of freedom that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place.
But a member of a religious minority cannot be exempt from baking a cake for a ceremony contrary to her faith. That, some say, is bigotry.
Well. I happen to think pacifism is misguided, but that's not a good argument for forcing pacifists to fly B-52s.
...
Make no mistake, the famous baker, photographer and florist are a religious minority. Who has more social, political and market power --Apple CEO Tim Cook and the hundreds of corporations asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage, or the small number of Christian wedding vendors who want to act on a private belief in the same definition of marriage Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton not long ago were in favor of enshrining in law?
"God's in the mix," Obama said of how marriage is defined during the 2008 presidential campaign.
God’s not in the cake mix, bigot, say liberals in 2015.
...
In fact, the new social liberals sound a lot like the old social conservatives. We have a public moral code around here and if you don’t comply with it, you’d better keep it to yourself.
Well, anti-Christian hostility is certainly real, captured by the American National Election Studies, which include questions about animosity toward various social groups. About one third of respondents rated conservative Christians significantly lower (by at least one standard deviation) than other religious and racial groups.
The only group to fare worse was atheists, who received low rankings from nearly half the respondents. But while atheists drew more global hostility than any other group, the negative rankings for conservative Christians came from a disproportionate number of white, highly educated, politically progressive, and wealthy respondents.
As this survey illustrates, animosity toward Christians involves racial, educational, and economic factors; the people most likely to hold negative views of conservative Christians also belong to demographic groups with high levels of social power. Rich, white, educated Americans are major influencers in media, academia, business, and government, and these are the people most likely to have a distaste for conservative Christians.
Their attitudes reflected the negativity toward Christians found in earlier research, with some particularly extreme and troubling remarks. Responding to open-ended questions, they said:
"Churches and houses of religion should be designated as nuclear test zones."
"Kill them all, let their god sort them out."
"The only good Christian is a dead Christian.”
I cannot determine by my data the percentage of Americans with such a level of vitriol, but judging by the comments, it's not a trivial amount.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/what-christianophobia-looks-like-in-america.html
Blogger Josh said...
"...never mind, they're too stupid to understand ANYTHING in STEM..."
Well, if anyone can teach the "stooopid" to understand incorrectly anything in biochemistry, it would be you. Like basic, entry-level biology terminology that a self-professed braggart of a "doctor" cannot even write correctly. Makes great sense, like a French tutor speaking Spanish.
8:39 PM
===============
Josh, why are you so hard on Yisheng? Is it because she's Black and trying to make it? I mean, can you blame her for trying to make it? She's Black, for pete's sake.
Give poor Yisheng a break, show some compassion. See, this is why I say you need Jesus. This Easter, do yourself a favor. Buy a cross and go to church.
anon9:32, I am from Russia and I have never seen such white racist attitudes against Blacks like Josh and Kinky.
Russians would never allow such.
FN posters FYI: Josh is not White. He is just pretending to be White. He knows too much about Blacks to be White. Either that or he grew up with the brothers and dated sisters. The man has too much soul to be White.
Anon #1: "Is it because she's Black and trying to make it?"
Yeah, exactly. I'm so busted. It's only because she' black, not because the first ever time she spoke to me she shouted out, "FUCK YOU HONKY AND YOUR CRACKA ASS FAMILY TOO" only to be applauded by Field himself and Mr. I-Say-Blah and others on here who chastise with quickness anything they deem white racism but carry around on shoulders black racists.
And of course it's not because she feigns intellectual superiority over everyone here she finds out is white, yet bungles entry-level biology terminology like a fucking retarded person.
It's only because she's black. Case closed!
Anon #2: "I have never seen such white racist attitudes against Blacks like Josh and Kinky."
Maybe focus on how you Russians treat gays before you feign fucking moral superiority over these horrible white racists like Josh, whose big racist "crime" on this blog is daring to disagree with black people at times.
After asking over 20 times for people who call me racist to produce just one racist thing I've said in context--just one!--the boilerplate now is to explain even less of the "why" and just keep repeating the word: Racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist...
You dumb fucks are hilarious. In the previous discussion, I named a few of my favorite guitarists. Slash, who is half black; Kim Thayhil, who is Asian; and Robert Johnson, who is black. And the stupid fuck over there literally called me a racist because I didn't name BB King. LMFAO doesn't cover it!
You retards need to adopt the strategy of my troll buddies. They just insist I'm gay; even they're not stupid enough to just throw around "racist" like it's a meaningless fucking word.
Holy shit. A fucking Russian wagging his finger and riding a morally superior high horse. I've seen it all now!
Anon #3: "He knows too much about Blacks to be White. Either that or he grew up with the brothers and dated sisters."
I came up in Suitland where, in real life, black folks are nowhere near as whiny and accusatory as they are via the Internet. A few retards notwithstanding, who would call white people racist for liking Nirvana more than Dr. Dre, most folks could disagree without assuming sinister motives from the other person.
Holy shit; I can only imagine if disagreements broke out into how it plays out at Field's IRL. We'd constantly be fighting. I was a Raiders fan in Redskins and Cowboys territory. I liked the Mariners and Red Sox deep in Orioles nation. I liked rock more than rap. By the standards at Fields, disagreeing with a black person makes you not only a racist but a racist so horrible that even fucking Russians are giving their disappointed mom face. I couldn't imagine meeting any of these people IRL. It would be a nightmare.
(Not to mention that black people here think so little of black people that they dare me to go disagree with a black person IRL, the implication being that black people are so brutal and animalistic and unhinged that they will murder me over a disagreement -- thus displaying that it's black people who have such a negative opinion of blacks, and they project that shit onto whites here. But that's neither here nor there. Just a quick by the bye: Field doesn't wag his holy finger at those people either. Go figure...)
Whoa. Josh is tuned up tonight. He's got both white barrels blazing on our black asses.
Anon #2: "I have never seen such white racist attitudes against Blacks like Josh and Kinky."
Josh said, "Maybe focus on how you Russians treat gays before you feign fucking moral superiority over these horrible white racists like Josh, whose big racist "crime" on this blog is daring to disagree with black people at times."
What gives you American the right to judge Putin? No way. Besides, racism and gays are two separate issues. But you always conflate a lot of shit into one, don't you? I bet you are Irish-Ukraniam.
Someone I've admired in SACNAS for YEARS, my Native American STEM shout out!!!
http://sacnas.org/news/sacnas-leader-honored-president-obama-contributions-stem
Josh, "Holy shit. A fucking Russian wagging his finger and riding a morally superior high horse. I've seen it all now!"
Have you ever seen Russian media? Well, there is no superiority in it, only Russian humility. You Americans like to make Russia look bad when you are the bad ones with all your racism.
Josh, "After asking over 20 times for people who call me racist to produce just one racist thing I've said in context--just one!--the boilerplate now is to explain even less of the "why" and just keep repeating the word: Racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist...
You dumb fucks are hilarious. In the previous discussion, I named a few of my favorite guitarists. Slash, who is half black; Kim Thayhil, who is Asian; and Robert Johnson, who is black. And the stupid fuck over there literally called me a racist because I didn't name BB King. LMFAO doesn't cover it!"
---------------
I DO believe Yisheng and PX listed some facts which you refused or ignored, which is typical of a racist.
The guitar thing is well known that a white person always pay homage to BB King. But your racist ass ignored him. You didn't even 'mention' his existence. The man has devoted his entire life to the guitar and Blues and you won't even acknowledge it? Yeah, I'd say you have a problem with skin color.
Josh, "(Not to mention that black people here think so little of black people that they dare me to go disagree with a black person IRL, the implication being that black people are so brutal and animalistic and unhinged that they will murder me over a disagreement -- thus displaying that it's black people who have such a negative opinion of blacks, and they project that shit onto whites here. But that's neither here nor there. Just a quick by the bye: Field doesn't wag his holy finger at those people either. Go figure...)"
10:48 PM
-----------------
Well, you 'might' have a point there. But you have to distinguish what everybody else said on FN vs. what Yisheng and PX said. Very different.
So, here's the fucking brilliant mind--emphasis on fucking brilliant mind--on Anonymous:
White person lists guitarists he feels are underrated. White person lists Slash, a mixed-race man; Kim Thayil, an Asian man, and Robert Johnson, a black man.
Said brilliant Anonymous proclaims that to not mention BB King is racist. That's right -- racist!
Every warning to never go full retard was obviously ignored -- for if you're not a fan of BB King, you're a racist! Thus implying that every person who isn't a racist is a fan of BB King, and that every person who isn't a racist will mention BB King even if they're not talking about BB King.
The cognitive dissonance you display is perhaps the most astonishing of all the Anon trolls I've ran across here. Fucking brilliant, man, seriously!
I'm not a fan of BB King, therefore racist! Never mind that the fact that I said that rather than King for my blues, I like Robert Johnson, who himself was a black man -- doesn't matter. RACIST!
You idiots really cheapen that word. Before long, "racist" will simply mean being born white.
So, the 3 guitarists I listed were all POC -- non-white minorities. And what did this idiot say?
"Yeah I'd say you have a problem with skin color."
I'd say you have a problem with thinking.
And were you white saying this nonsense, the blahs would be crawling all over your ass as an idiot. But being black and blasting a white person as a racist means you'll hear crickets over your demonstrable stupidity.
#BlackPrivilege. lmfao
"You Americans like to make Russia look bad when you are the bad ones with all your racism."
Yeah. That's the conspiracy fodder everybody needs. It's not Russia's fucked-up shit; it's that Americans make them look bad, when we're actually the bad ones...because reasons.
"But you always conflate a lot of shit into one, don't you?"
You seem to have a rudimentary understanding of what the word "conflate" means, evidenced by you saying "a lot of shit into one." However, I'm guessing this word exists in the upper echelon of your vocabulary, and you think you're getting some smart points by using it -- albeit woefully incorrectly.
Never did I even remotely attempt to conflate racism with anti-gay behavior.
Are you the Anon telling me repeatedly that I need Jesus?
If so, try this explanation on for size. What I was saying: Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Or, if you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Or, check out your own back yard before you check out someone else.
Or, paint your own walls before criticizing the color of your neighbors' walls.
Or, the thousands of other ways the exact same thing can be said!
Holy fucking shit. How stupid a person do you plan on being?
Nowhere in that sentiment--retarded people inferences notwithstanding--can it even be spun to suggest I was conflating the two.
What you're trying to do is create a logical fallacy of relative privation, but the trouble is that you're not intelligent enough to even misstate it. You get about 60% there but then just fall back into let's-call-'im-a-racist mode.
You're essentially trying to say that racism is the worst, white people are the worst, America is the worst, and thus every other problem I mention--even the ones you only infer--shouldn't be mentioned because racism and white Americans are the worst and I'm attempting to draw focus away from your cause celebre go-to issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
You're a fanboy
Im Anonymous of "Shining Hill", TerreHaute Waffle House, of the WEB Dubois school of thought. I agree with our poster Josh on most issues. PilotX isn't freeing anybody from any plantation as I'm a staunch black Obama, blue dog democrat. Blacks have to consider whether the "racism barking & blaming" strategy, is the only valid strategy. Reasonable minds will understand reasonable arguments.
Josh, "If so, try this explanation on for size. What I was saying: Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Or, if you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Or, check out your own back yard before you check out someone else.
Or, paint your own walls before criticizing the color of your neighbors' walls.
Or, the thousands of other ways the exact same thing can be said!
Holy fucking shit. How stupid a person do you plan on being?"
+++++++++++
You stupid American. You talk about not throwing stones at you but you cast many stones all the time at Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Mexico and others.
You play God as if you know how the world should be and how Russia should be. Even in your own country you talk about the Blacks, sing Frat racist songs, kill black men, you choke them to death, enslave them in your prisons, call them niggers as if they are not human. America has more people in prison than any country in the world! And you have more guns to kill than any other country in the world.
Yet you go around the world telling other countries how they should live. You are a bully who tries to control others with fear.
And you think you are smart? NO, it's very stupid, callous and in some cases down right evil. That's right, you are the barbarians with money, much like some of your athletes.
Instead of calling other countries an axis of evil, maybe you should look at your 'axis of racism'? That's pure evil and you Whites are too fearful to even discuss the one thing that is weakening your country moment-by-moment, day-by-day, year-by-year, decade-by-decade--it keeps getting worse with injustices you put on your black citizens.
In plain English, you need to STFU.
Anonymous OptimusPrime said...
Im Anonymous of "Shining Hill", TerreHaute Waffle House, of the WEB Dubois school of thought. I agree with our poster Josh on most issues. PilotX isn't freeing anybody from any plantation as I'm a staunch black Obama, blue dog democrat. Blacks have to consider whether the "racism barking & blaming" strategy, is the only valid strategy. Reasonable minds will understand reasonable arguments.
8:29 AM
===========
'Reasonable minds' will understand reasonable arguments? Really?
Well, we need to have a big reasonable discussion about racism and the injustices in America. Is that reasonable? Can a reasonable mind understand the necessity of that?
Well, it's not happening and apparently it will never happen. Why is that? I ask you because you seem to be a 'reasonable' mind with a 'reasonable' solution to the problem of racism, which to my mind is 'illogical'...please enlighten me.
Maybe an external discussion isn't the answer. Maybe an upgrade, updated version of this discussion:
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai2/politics/text6/text6read.htm
is the most elegant solution. Until we respect our own house, why do we expect others to feel so strongly about it?
"In plain English, you need to STFU."
Anonymous, you unhinged freak, that rant didn't have fuck-all to do with me. You just went off on an anti-American rant, transforming me into a surrogate for your America-hating psychopathic episode.
You're fucking delusional.
"Well, we need to have a big reasonable discussion about racism and the injustices in America."
This is a blatant lie.
What you mean to say is, "Well, people need to sit down and listen and believe as people who think they're oppressed make demands of everyone else in America."
There's no "discussion" to it; your side wants to preach to everyone else. The funny thing is that white, upper-class modern feminists have already beat racial minorities at their own game. Racism moves farther and farther down the list of important issues every year in America, and it's all thanks to social justice warriors who pretend to actually be against things like racism but are actually just self-centered, spoiled brats who demand that the universe need run on their feelings.
Josh, Jim Antle, Ace Freely and myself have formed an interracial, non-partisan coalition of freedom and liberated thought, that even FN will co-sign.
While, Josh and Ace may give it to you straight-no-chaser, Jim, FN and myself are working hard to end the whining and help the alleged disenfranchised commentators dry their weepy eyes so they can see the blessing it is to live in the US and voice your grievance, then move on to the solution.
"...so they can see the blessing it is to live in the US..."
There's something about having a progressive ideology that in itself tends to view America as the worst place in the history of the fucking world. I don't know what it is, but all I can even guess is that being a victim has become such a lucrative venture in today's overtly-sympathetic, tear-shedding world of marshmallow wills that one must paint America in general as a great oppressor to complete the axiom. After all, you can't be an oppressed person bereft an oppressor, and painting the entire nation as a giant piece of systemic injustice holding you down is the safest way to go.
By using terms like "systemic injustice" and "oppression," the terms basically transform into the equivalent of "patriarchy"; e.g. they are exceedingly nebulous and become fits-all terminology for every minor slight to heinous grievance an individual suffers.
Pulled over while black? Obviously only because you were black! Hence systemic injustice.
Your neighborhood is in shittier shape than the cul de sac across town? Obvious systemic oppression is obvious.
People aren't just handing you a living and are forcing you to work in a meritocracy? Oh, that systemic injustice is a bitch!
Someone smarter than me said it long ago, but I'll poorly paraphrase it: "The reason why citizens don't spark revolution to institute socialism is that it would require work. And no socialist wants to actually work; they want other people to work while they reap the rewards."
The progressive Marx ball suckers who whine and want everyone else to cater to their feelings don't actually want to lift a finger to do anything about what they see as wrong with America. Back to the "discussion" bullshit: They just want to scream about what they think is wrong, and they want someone else to fix it for them.
The solution for a lot of people: STFU, work harder, study harder, don't expect life to grovel at your feet. Deal with bad shit as it rears its head.
The answer to that from others: OMG, you're such a racist!
Bullshit, businesses don't have religious beliefs. If you are a baker you bake cakes for people who order them. Jimmy Johns can't pick and choose who they can make a sandwich for. You are free to discriminate as long as you don't hold your services out to the PUBLIC. What's so hard about that to understand unless you want the right to discriminate codified into law. See Ace, you at least are telling the truth about this law which is a step forward for a conservative.
Post a Comment