*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

Bill, I do get what you're saying. You're just wrong. You're failing to see the distinctions, and so you're accusing me of twisting.

try and follow me now....

I refuse to acknowledge things like "black rights", "gay rights", "woman's rights" etc. because I believe that groups can't have rights. Individuals do. I believe that's the point you've been trying to make about Christians.

But you're wrong.

Religious people are special in America. That's what the constitution says. It says that Christians, and people of any other religion, have a special inalienable right to practice their religion freely without any interference from government. You may think that's a "human" right, but it isn't. There are lots of countries right now that mix religion and government, often in terrible ways. The UN seems to be going right along with it.

So yes, Christians have special rights in America. So do muslims who refuse to paint pictures of their prophet.

Gay people DON'T have any special rights afforded by the constitution. In fact, for most of american history (and maybe still today) there were many states with completely constitutional laws against sodomy.

Do you see the difference? Religion is in the constitution. Homosexuality isn't. So if you're going to ask the government to intervene in a dispute between the two....religion should win every time.

And yes, that holds even if the religious person is a bigot.

[CoccoBill]

Religious people are special in America. That's what the constitution says. It says that Christians, and people of any other religion, have a special inalienable right to practice their religion freely without any interference from government. You may think that's a "human" right, but it isn't. There are lots of countries right now that mix religion and government, often in terrible ways. The UN seems to be going right along with it.

So yes, Christians have special rights in America. So do muslims who refuse to paint pictures of their prophet.

Gay people DON'T have any special rights afforded by the constitution. In fact, for most of american history (and maybe still today) there were many states with completely constitutional laws against sodomy.

Do you see the difference? Religion is in the constitution. Homosexuality isn't. So if you're going to ask the government to intervene in a dispute between the two....religion should win every time.

And yes, that holds even if the religious person is a bigot.

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject? This started from me saying the US seems to be heading towards more liberal values, and you then asking our opinion about it, what do we think SHOULD be done. Why would it matter what you think the constitution says?

Oh, wait

But you're wrong.

This is just so you get to say that, isn't? Just like Mojo and I said, all you care about is getting to say that and if that requires strawmen, bring them on. You're pathetic.

[Mr.Banana]

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject?

Are you serious?

Look guys, I'm dead serious here. I have no idea what Bill's problem is right now.

post 8491 Bill says....

Here's an example from earlier that I think lead to this.......This was your direct response to me saying Christians and Pagans should not have special privileges or rights

I respond with...

Religious people are special in America because.....

Then bill says....

What exactly does this rant have to do with the subject? This started from me saying the US seems to be heading towards more liberal values

Fucking Clown world

[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?

[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]

Post 8493 kind of says it all I think