Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 66,135
- 150,727
No you can't be that dumb as a cake bakery proprietor b/c as anyone whose been married, your wife will drag you to the cake shop to decide on the cake if you want to or not. And NO the first rule you understand is you're not allowed to say "you decide on the cake, i don't care" b/c fuck you, so these 2 gays 100% most likely went together, order'd a respectable cake, the guy said fine, then he went home, told his dumb bitch wife baker(who seemingly takes time off once in a while) that he's "hunnie we got our first gay cake order" and she says "fuck you, lord dunnah want us to soil ourselves dealing with these heathens" "cancel the fucking orda!!!".
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Yeah, law's retarded. He owes them for the waste of time. Same as he'd owe a pair of breeders. Just trying to cheap out in the name of Jesus. Ain't what it's about, man.
But a business owner should have the right to refuse service for whatever damnfool reason he wants to. Just not reneg. They ain't slaves.
But a business owner should have the right to refuse service for whatever damnfool reason he wants to. Just not reneg. They ain't slaves.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
1. We're clearly debating this now.
2. Try reading the actual decision sometime instead of Wikipedia.
3. You are welcome to defend the logic of the McClung decision by explaining to the world how BBQ sandwiches sold from a single location affect Interstate Commerce. Good luck.
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that this decision can't be reversed. It's already been partially reversed by the Roberts Court in Obamacare case.
So you basically think everyone is a bigot and only the coercive power of the state keeps us from tearing each other apart.
Racist much?
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
Very little point in debating someone who thinks he wins arguments by linking Wikipedia articles.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
That is rich coming from the guy who bases his decisions on blog posts written by a guy up on fraud charges.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Very little point debating atheism/theism with me because they are definitionally defined and the definitions explicitly refute your shitty argument that a lack of belief is really a belief.
When you have no cars, does that mean you really have a car, tad?
When you have no money, does that really mean you're rich?
By the same reasoning, when you have a LACK OF BELIEF IN A CLAIM, you do not BELIEVE THAT CLAIM.
No, you're trying to debate a settled issue. I'm merely pointing out you're retarded
1. Genetic fallacies aren't rebuttals
2.How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
You are literally this retarded.
I don't need to defend the logic of the decision, we already had 9 supreme court justices do that for me, including 4 of them all writing confirming opinions on the case. If you'd like to argue the logic of their decision, my suggestion is take it up with the Supreme Court.
I'm not operating under any assumptions here. The fact that you think because something could maybe potentially happen in the future, therefore the law isn't the way it is today because of that, is fucking dumb. But it is you we're talking about here.
No, I think we have a history in this country of a mass discrimination machine perpetuated against a segment of our population, and that was recent enough history that people still remember what it would be like if we went back to that.
Shitty attempt to claim reverse racism is shitty.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Because its lazy basically.
They all suggest you use the citations section of the articles as a starting point, and they all suggest you use the article as a way to get a broad general overview of the topic you want to discuss, they just don't want direct citations from wikipedia because its already done all your work for you.
Malakriss
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 12,751
- 12,139
Thanks for letting everyone know you never even bothered to read the wedding cake story or why it was bad legally speaking.
Can someone actually quote scripture that has any context for people refusing gays? Yes it's an "abomination" but it's making a cake for them actually a sin or have any repercussions for damning their eternal soul to burn in hell?
If someone can or cannot do it, case closed but if it's purely interpretation, well, bigot.
If someone can or cannot do it, case closed but if it's purely interpretation, well, bigot.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
No. I'd go with very little point debating with you because you think a tautology is proof. In other words you're an idiot.
And that these analogies have nothing to do with anything.
God isn't a car. Belief isn't a tangible thing. The proper analogy is when all you ever see are White Swans so you assert that Black Swans do not exist. That's a logical fallacy, and the one you're making. Atheism is a belief system centered about the unprovable through scientific means assertion that God does not exist, and those who propagate and evangelize it like you seem to be doing in this thread have turned it into a religion. But that's for that other thread, right.
Yeah, that's not how Constitutional Law works which points out that you know fuck all about what you're talking about it.
You're quoting Live Science to defend Wikipedia? GTFO.
Constitutional Law changes all the time and decisions have been completely walked back: Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind.
Yes. You're a super-secret racist who think everyone else is a super-secret racist and wants Jim Crow back. I got that already.
Shitty defense of your flat-out racist statement is shitty.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Definitionally defined terms are not tautological fallacies. You need to go back to logic 101. The laws of identity and non contradiction and excluded middle state that A is equal to A and A is not equal to Not A, and there is no point in time where A and Not A can exist at the same time, in the same entity. Theism is A. A-theism is Not A. A cannot equal Not A. This is definitional. Trying to claim this is tautologically fallacious is akin to stating that it is tautologically fallacious to point out that 2 + 2 = 4 DEFINITIONALLY.
I mean you can say it, but the fact that you're trying to hand wave it away because you can't actually address it is all the evidence we need that you don't have a rebuttal to basic, simple facts. You cannot have a lack of belief, and then call it a religion. A religion is defined as a series of beliefs. By definition, a lack of belief is not a belief. Therefore atheism cannot be a religion. This is definitional.
Your god does not exist to be anything.
Incorrect. We can demonstrate on a very visceral level when beliefs are accepted in the brain. Neural imaging and brain scanning has demonstrated that there are very real physiological processes that occur in the brain when someone accepts something as a belief.
Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty - Harris - 2007 - Annals of Neurology - Wiley Online Library
Until you can provide evidence to justify your claim that black swans exist, whether they exist somewhere in the universe or not is irrelevant to the fact that belief in their existence is not justified.
No, its called rational skepticism, where you do not just believe a claim of existence because someone can imagine it potentially being true. We've been over this with Dumar. Try go reading the Atheism thread.
Disbelieving positive claims for which there is no evidence is not a logical fallacy. Again, you need to go back to basic intro to logic 101.
Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in a positive claim of a god's existence. Again, you cannot have a lack of belief and call that a belief. This is definitional.
Stale strawman from theists is stale. Already rebutted twice in this post. Regurgitate your shitty wrong opinion all you want, A will never equal Not A. That's definitional.
Can't evangelize a lack of belief. Evangelism is an attempt to convert someone to a religion, like Christianity. A lack of belief is not belief, so atheism isn't a religion, so you can't convert people to it, and you can't evangelize to them. Try again
Incorrect.
Actually this has already been hashed out in the Atheism thread, and you're wrong on the subject which ever thread you choose to shitpost about it in.
It actually is how our Constitutional law works: Supreme Court hears a case, makes a decision, and that decision is final.
He says while stating that 2 and 2 equate to 5 for all intents and purposes.
Using one genetic fallacy to defend another genetic fallacy when the article cited points out that every single peer reviewed look at Wikipedia's articles demonstrate their validity isn't a rebuttal. Its a cop out. A pathetic, shitty one at that.
That's nice. You're never going to see the Supreme's revoke this decision, and since they haven't yet, speculating that they might one day is meaningless to this discussion. The law is settled. You will not see a time where a case like this goes to the Supremes and they decide that, yes, in fact, its perfectly okay for private businesses to refuse service to customers based on their race, class, biological sex, religion, sexual persuasion, etc.
Cites a case where discriminatory policies were revoked to justify an argument that discriminatory policies will be reinstated. Retarded.
Clearly whether you consciously want Jim Crow back, the policy you support is how Jim Crow came to be in the first place, so arguing for your position is, in fact, stating you would like to take us back to Jim Crow
And Tad has now devolved to the "I'm rubber, you're glue" phase of his shitty 1st grade debate methodology.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,834
- 100,051
SCOTUS is a fucking joke just like the rest of the legal system in this country. Just go read up on Kelo v New London(the imminent domain case).
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378