*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

What does your constitution have to do with my personal opinion about what's right?

[Mr.Banana]

What does your constitution have to do with my personal opinion about what's right?

Is this a thread for discussing/debating politics? Or a blog about your feelings?

But ok...let's pretend your personal opinion matters for a minute. I want to change it, because it's wrong.

Your 'personal opinion' is willing to sacrifice religious freedom on the altar of social justice. How is that a good idea?

Just to be crystal clear, again, for what feels like the 1000th time....NO ONE is advocating for any practice where someone is allowed to deny goods or services to a gay person just because they morally object to gayness. No one has ever supported that opinion. Not in this thread. Not in any court case or news story that I've ever heard of.

however, there are cases where a business owner's craft involves his personal speech, religious practice, or other activity that is *protected* under the constitution. In in that narrow set of cases...no cake.


Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

[Mr.Banana]

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

Same questions for Monkeyman

[CoccoBill]

Is this a thread for discussing/debating politics? Or a blog about your feelings?

Read this again.

You want something that is illegal and technically not feasable under even the most rudimentary interpretation of the constitution. We're not talking about some obscure amendment here. It's the first damn sentence in teh constitution.

So now suddenly you don't understand what we (actually you) were talking about earlier?

But ok...let's pretend your personal opinion matters for a minute. I want to change it, because it's wrong.

Your 'personal opinion' is willing to sacrifice religious freedom on the altar of social justice. How is that a good idea?

Just to be crystal clear, again, for what feels like the 1000th time....NO ONE is advocating for any practice where someone is allowed to deny goods or services to a gay person just because they morally object to gayness. No one has ever supported that opinion. Not in this thread. Not in any court case or news story that I've ever heard of.

however, there are cases where a business owner's craft involves his personal speech, religious practice, or other activity that is *protected* under the constitution. In in that narrow set of cases...no cake.

Here's what I said:

"IMO a Christian baker has the right believe whatever he wants, but he doesn't have the right to discriminate others based on his beliefs. As long as we're talking about a private person/company doing the discriminating, I don't know where exactly I'd draw the line, possibly not at gay wedding cakes, but any public office/representative should absolutely not practice any of it."

What part exactly do you disagree with? Where does it say "religious freedom should be sacrificed on the altar of social justice"?

Do you really believe that a sincere Christian with a genuine moral opposition to gay marriage should be forced to engage with a gay couple, learn enough about their gay relationship to produce a custom product, and then use his personal artistic talents (i.e. speech) to help them celebrate what the Christian believes to be a sin?

And like I've already said, ideally there wouldn't be religions, and at least they wouldn't have any special privileges, but as long as that's the case the line needs to be drawn somewhere. IMO not at wedding cakes, but somewhere.

Do you really think that the government should force someone to do that?

No. Do you think the government should not intervene if someone wants to sacrifice a goat or a virgin based on their religion?

Do you really think that person is a bigot?

Quite possibly.

[Mr.Banana]

Do you think the government should not intervene if someone wants to sacrifice a goat

The question is worded strangely so won't say yes or no. If someone wants to kill a goat that they own, it's not the gov's business at all. And that's not a religious rights issue. Goats are property.

or a virgin based on their religion?

is this a sincere question? Do you really need an answer to this?

[CoccoBill]

is this a sincere question? Do you really need an answer to this?

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

[Mr.Banana]

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

[CoccoBill]

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

Now, did I ask you whether you think under current legislation the action is considered a crime, or

"Do you think the government should not intervene if..."

Now rate your performance on answering the question.

[oskar]

I think it's a categorical "no" whether Trump's speech incited anything to do with the storming of the Capitol building.

Holy shit and I thought I was the psychopath here who wanted to see the US burn to the ground. But I can respect it!


Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

[Mr.Banana]

Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

Is this a serious question? I do have an answer if you actually want it.

[Mr.Banana]

Hey banana, what if... bear with me... what if twitter is
the christian baker.

dun dun dun!

Just in case you're serious, here's the answer. Actually I'd like to give two answers.

First is...Sure! Have it your way. Let's say Twitter is exercising it's free speech by censoring/banning whatever people/voices/opinions it chooses. Is that the point you were trying to make? I love it. LET'S DO THAT. Now Twitter "owns" every tweet that it leaves up. Now they're a publisher and not a platform. Now they are responsible for what they publish. Awesome. Let's live in that world, please.

Now the second answer....the one for the real world....the one where still pretend twitter is a platform.

I get that Twitter is a private company, it can set it's own standards of conduct, and it can discipline people for violating those standards as it sees fit. Fine. Fair enough. And if they have a little bit of a political bias, society can tolerate it to a certain degree. They have to fill a 24 hour news cycle somehow.

But we are at the point where Twitter is big enough that it's necessary for full competitive access to the marketplace. So it has enormous power over just about everything. And what they are doing is selectively censoring voices along ideological and political lines on a large scale.

That violates about a zillion campaign finance and election interference laws. and frankly it's fucking dangerous. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I'm not about to sacrifice democracy on the altar of free speech, all so twitter's stock price can go up a quarter of a fucking point. No thanks.

And the coordination between twitter, google, amazon, apple, and facebook is illegal. they're monopolies engaging in anti-comeptitive behavior. But who would prosecute them? You saw what happened to the congresspeople who objected to the election. They're legally allowed to do that. Free speech and whatnot. But all of their corporate donors bailed, publicly. They're done. They'll never get elected to anything again because the corporations that choose our leaders have decided to excommunicate them.

So who the fuck is gonna have the balls to prosecute an anti-trust case against Twitter?

Oskar, I hope you realize how toxic your question is.

[oskar]

...And what they are doing is selectively censoring voices along ideological and political lines on a large scale.

That violates about a zillion campaign finance and election interference laws. and frankly it's fucking dangerous. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I'm not about to sacrifice democracy on the altar of free speech, all so twitter's stock price can go up a quarter of a fucking point. No thanks.

You're acting like people are getting banned for conservative ideology. Trump didn't get banned because he was arguing against austerity politics. Trump got banned because he was deliberately spreading disinformation and encouraging violence, which is against twitter's TOS. If those are part of your political platform (like ldo they are) then bad luck.

Maybe try not losing so hard next time and your side can influence political discourse again.