This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
1
« on: August 23, 2016, 02:24:14 PM »
I found a smart negress. Check this shit out:
She's right. Fuckin' apes aping over a justified shooting
Man, I've been gone for a bit. I thought racial slurs weren't allowed in Serious? Quality content you folks have here.
2
« on: July 21, 2016, 12:59:56 PM »
Until we adopt an alternative voting system, I'm forced to vote for Hillary to keep Supreme Emperor Trump out of power.
3
« on: April 21, 2016, 03:46:45 PM »
She did porn too
Steroids made her clit look super gross. It's like a pierced micropenis.
At what point does a large clitoris become a tiny penis?
4
« on: April 07, 2016, 02:41:11 PM »
Turns out that's still a war crime, but Donald fans don't care about war crimes, so I guess that's a moot point.
Which president ever cared about war crimes?
The US commits them all the time--nothing happens because it's always on the winning side, or at least the side of enforcement.
So...we should just continue to do it? No thanks.
5
« on: April 03, 2016, 01:05:44 AM »
There is literally nothing wrong with this, and if you think there is you have no business calling yourself a liberal.
Discrimination bad, equality good!
This isn't a hard concept to figure out.
Oh, I see, I see.
So policies that could require people to act counter to their religious beliefs are okay because LGBTQWTFBBQ rights are more important than religious rights. Gotcha.
You seem to be under the impression that LGBT rights and religious freedom are at odds, and the more LGBT rights there are, the less religious freedom you have.
Well, when those laws force you to go against your religion, yes it does.
Providing your business's good or service to a homosexual does not infringe upon your right to your religious beliefs.
6
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:41:46 PM »
Turns out that's still a war crime, but Donald fans don't care about war crimes, so I guess that's a moot point.
7
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:40:17 PM »
How is catering a gay wedding any different than catering a hetero wedding?
I refuse to believe you're actually this obtuse with regards to other people's beliefs.
I refuse to believe you're so retarded that you think providing your business's service at a wedding you don't agree with means your religious beliefs are somehow violated.
8
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:36:48 PM »
Being gay has nothing to do with them being a customer, so your business should have no issue providing a good or service for them, just as you would for any other customer.
This is true if they just walk in and buy a cake. It isn't true if they ask you to cater their wedding.
I disagree. How is catering a gay wedding any different than catering a hetero wedding? You still provide the same service. You still use the same catering trays, plates, silverware, and napkins. You still cook the same foods.
9
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:26:54 PM »
In the South everyday is Jim Crow day.
This is fucking ridiculous.
How the fuck are store owners supposed to actively discriminate against homosexuals anyway? There is no real gay look, accent, or tell.
That's actually a great argument, but it doesn't support your position. Being gay has nothing to do with them being a customer, so your business should have no issue providing a good or service for them, just as you would for any other customer.
10
« on: April 02, 2016, 01:01:04 AM »
Careful, the last time I said "hugbox" I got yelled at for being insensitive to autistic folks.
11
« on: April 01, 2016, 07:17:09 PM »
I'm curious as to where in any religious text is Part C referenced
The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523CS.htm
Psalm 139:13.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/139.htmEven in context it's quite a far stretch to say Psalm 139:13 means transgender people aren't real; men are men and women are women.
12
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:50:00 PM »
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability. I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.
I figured you were going to take us back to Jim Crow with your response. We don't live in the '50s any more; it's not like your description is even plausible in today's society. The few businesses that deny services to homosexual weddings get ridiculed by the public and just put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Seems entirely unnecessary to get the state involved.
What makes you think entire areas of the South wouldn't all refuse services to LGBT people, just like entire areas refused services to blacks?
13
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:38:22 PM »
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability. I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.
14
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:37:26 PM »
I'm curious as to where in any religious text is Part C referenced The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523CS.htm
15
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM »
What happens when the expression of your rights infringes upon the rights of someone else?
Refusing to cater a wedding doesn't infringe on the rights of anybody. Gay people don't have the right to demand services from anybody.
And what right does a business owner have to deny their good or service to a customer based on something entirely unrelated to the good or service the business provides? I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability. That's not unreasonable. Why does that not extend to sexual orientation? The job of a business owner is to provide their good or service to a customer. The only cases in which they should deny their good or service is when the customer's request is unreasonable, or the business is not able to meet the needs of the customer.
16
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:26:10 PM »
there's no reason the state should make laws to protect that hatefulness.
No, but you seem to be forgetting that freedom to your religion, freedom to association and freedom of conscience are all human rights protected by law.
I wouldn't want for anybody to feel as if their moral integrity has been harmed. I don't see why a Christian should be forced to cater for a gay wedding, why a Muslim should be forced to cater for a Jewish ceremony or why any kind of theist should be forced to cater for some kind of atheist event.
But not all things are equal. What happens when the expression of your rights infringes upon the rights of someone else?
17
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:22:18 PM »
How is baking a cake, providing flowers, etc, mean you're partaking in a sinful event? You're not really asking me how providing a service for a ceremony means you're partaking in that ceremony, are you?
Get a fucking grip.
If a person who buys a plain chocolate cake from a baker happens to be gay, does that mean the baker is sinful now? No, because that retarded.
Well yeah, because then the baker isn't knowingly facilitating a sinful event.
Is the baker/florist/caterer standing up there, reciting their vows? No. Then they aren't participating in the event.
18
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:20:39 PM »
If you disagree with that, you're advocating a refusal of services based on sexuality.
You're missing some of the nuance of his point, though. There's a difference between a straight guy and a gay guy walking into the store, buying a cake and then waking out again; compared with having a business actively cater for a ceremony they fundamentally disagree with.
Again, that's a problem with the religion, not the law. If a religion mandates its followers to discriminate against people, there's no reason the state should make laws to protect that hatefulness.
Indeed. If only we had sort of separation between matters of the church and matters of the state... That would surely clear some of this up.
19
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:18:02 PM »
How is it discrimination for you to provide the good or service of your business to all customers?
It's discriminatory to legally require businesses to provide services for events or functions which they believe are immoral.
Whatever you think about the belief, a lot of Christians think gay marriage is a sin. Forcing people to partake in something which they feel hurts their moral integrity is discriminatory in the most obvious of ways.
How is baking a cake, providing flowers, etc, mean you're partaking in a sinful event? You're not. They aren't part of the wedding. They aren't even in attendance. They don't even know these people. If a person who buys a plain chocolate cake from a baker happens to be gay, does that mean the baker is sinful now? No, because that retarded. It's not a concern of the baker what the customer does with their cake.
20
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:10:43 PM »
But when your actions discriminate against gays, that's a problem and it infringes upon their rights as human beings.
Seriously, can none of you read?
Let me make it clear: forcing Christians to perform a service they disagree with due to their beliefs is discrimination. If you think that's okay, I don't care. It's not the discussion I'm having here. What I am saying is that justifying discrimination against Christians on the grounds of being anti-discrimination is fucking dumb.
If you still want to discriminate against Christians, then fine. Just find a better justification for it.
How is it discrimination for you to provide the good or service of your business to all customers?
21
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:02:44 PM »
when in reality it's just discriminating against people or beliefs they don't particularly feel comfortable with.
Except this is exactly what progressives do when they demand that Christian business owners serve LGBT individuals. When you say to a Christian bakery, or whatever, "You have to cater to this gay wedding" you are discriminating against them because you are uncomfortable with their beliefs.
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the law; just that you're being a hypocrite.
Could they refuse to cater to a black marriage because of their personal beliefs? Of course not. Sexuality and race are both protected statuses under the law, and if your religion is forcing you to discriminate against someone, that's a problem with the religion, not the law.
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the law; just that you're being a hypocrite.
If you think we oughtn't respect the beliefs of the religious, then fine. But fucking say that, don't try and justify it while flouting your credentials as somebody who fights discrimination.
This isn't about the beliefs of the religious, it's about the actions of the religious. If you hate gays and think they're an abomination - fine. You're an idiot, but fine. Those are your beliefs. But when your actions discriminate against gays, that's a problem and it infringes upon their rights as human beings. Chalking up your discriminatory actions as part of your religion does not give you a pass.
22
« on: April 01, 2016, 03:54:22 PM »
There is literally nothing wrong with this, and if you think there is you have no business calling yourself a liberal.
Discrimination bad, equality good!
This isn't a hard concept to figure out.
Oh, I see, I see.
So policies that could require people to act counter to their religious beliefs are okay because LGBTQWTFBBQ rights are more important than religious rights. Gotcha.
You seem to be under the impression that LGBT rights and religious freedom are at odds, and the more LGBT rights there are, the less religious freedom you have.
Clearly you don't understand my position at all.
So then clear it up for me. Why do you think LGBT rights have anything to do with your religious freedom?
23
« on: April 01, 2016, 03:22:45 PM »
Is that not the entire point of laws in a liberal republic?
I don't really understand what you mean by this.
24
« on: April 01, 2016, 03:15:53 PM »
There is literally nothing wrong with this, and if you think there is you have no business calling yourself a liberal.
Discrimination bad, equality good!
This isn't a hard concept to figure out.
Oh, I see, I see.
So policies that could require people to act counter to their religious beliefs are okay because LGBTQWTFBBQ rights are more important than religious rights. Gotcha.
You seem to be under the impression that LGBT rights and religious freedom are at odds, and the more LGBT rights there are, the less religious freedom you have.
25
« on: April 01, 2016, 03:13:09 PM »
it must be really scary to be religious in the US - feeling like you're in a constant state of threat and everyone is out to get you, so much so that you need to pass laws to 'protect' your freedom.
26
« on: March 31, 2016, 07:05:44 PM »
Yes, and you need to worry about the extreme right.
The fundamentalist right isn't nearly as politically influential as the extremist left though, certainly in the UK anyway.
Well aren't you quite lucky
Exactly how? Extremism is shitty regardless of where it aligns on the political spectrum. It's not like far left fascists are any less inherently evil than far right fascists.
I think the point is that the extremists on the religious right in the US have a stranglehold on our country, unlike the retards on the regressive left.
I'm well aware, but I was addressing his implication that extremist leftism is somehow preferable to far right fundamentalism.
I'll clue you in, it's not.
You're right, I certainly don't disagree there.
27
« on: March 31, 2016, 07:02:11 PM »
Maybe people should actually be respectful and listen to cops. You don't get shot when you do as they say
Talking shit and being disrespectful does not warrant an execution.
28
« on: March 31, 2016, 07:00:36 PM »
Yes, and you need to worry about the extreme right.
The fundamentalist right isn't nearly as politically influential as the extremist left though, certainly in the UK anyway.
Well aren't you quite lucky
Exactly how? Extremism is shitty regardless of where it aligns on the political spectrum. It's not like far left fascists are any less inherently evil than far right fascists.
I think the point is that the extremists on the religious right in the US have a stranglehold on our country, unlike the retards on the regressive left.
29
« on: March 31, 2016, 01:50:16 PM »
Chris Dorner warned us about these types of cops
It's a shame he was all talk.
I'd argue that killing innocent people isn't "all talk"
30
« on: March 30, 2016, 05:58:15 PM »
Because people should have the same rights, regardless of any superficial physical discrepancies like skin color or genitalia shape.
Many people vehemently disagree with that, unfortunately.
|
Show Posts