leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
No no slim.... you have said over and over that they made their living from selling books and with books gone they were going broke.
YOUR calculations out them at 1.2 BILLION a year and yet you think they are going broke and have no way to survive.
Please reconcile those positions
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
Hey slim..... just curious.... you have now officially admitted that the wt corp brings in 1.2 BILLION dollars a year.
1.2 billion.
Can you please reconcile that with immenent finical collapse? Can you please reconcile that with “books are gone they have no revenue anymore”?
I will wait for your inevitable tap dance.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Ok im done with this. The shark has been jumped
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
THEY DID OFFER TO MAKE OR SELL ANY GENERIC CAKE THEY WANTED!!!!!!! How many damn times do we have to explain that part?
THEY OFFERED A GENERIC CAKE!!!!!!
and if you cant understand the difference between the police and a baker then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed on the internet
Again, wow! Why the hell would they put that in a video that wasnt even intended for the public? Weird beyond words. Maybe im seeing what im told to see but i swear thats a qr symbol
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Sigh... creativity is deeply rooted to the person doing the creating. You simply CANNOT force someone to be creative for you. Want proof?
Who owns a tattoo? The person its on, right? Nope. Tattoo artists can copy write their work.
Its admirable that so many care about ‘gay rights’...
but theres no such thing. Homosexuals have no special rights. Sorry if that bothers you.
Wow, that is definitely a qr symbol! What is that from? How bizzare. This is far, far from the religion i once knew.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Its insane what people think it a “right”, in this case believing its a “right” to make someone else serve you in the way you require.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
John, you didnt answer. Im looking for a specific law or statue that makes being homosexual “protected”.
Let me help with my own example. Your wrong about pornographers not being protected. The supreme court has ruled on that several times and in different contexts, some of which may shock you.
So again i ask.... why shouldnt a baker be forced to make a pornographic cake?
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
morph as blown away pointed out in his earlier circular reasoning filled comment there are groups that the law protects- homosexuals are one of them, porno lovers are not.
Hmm... i think im begining to see the problem. Could, per chance, cite a specific law or statue that makes bei g homsexual “protected”?
