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.
How many times!
It's nothing like that Fink.
It's exactly like a restaurant owner who will happily serve gay customers but who decides not to hire out his restaurant for a gay wedding reception.
IMO he is wrong but I defend his right to make that decision.
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.
It’s no different than a hotel owner claiming they are at liberty to refuse other races as guests - SBF
It's a bit depressing how often people comment on threads without first checking how often their point has been made and refuted.
after a bit of a kerfuffle over a procedural matter, my university has awarded me a degree.
(the procedural problem was caused by my independent selection of what i wanted to study).
award : bachelor of arts.
Congratulations!
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.
If you're going to hate the gays just say so. It seems that many on this board share your thoughts. - ctwtf
Fuck of with your judgemental accusations.
Personally I would gladly make cakes for gay weddings and turn up and dance at the wedding and hug the groom and the other groom.
I DISAGREE with the position of the bakers but I think they have every right to take that position.
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.
logically you should be ok with a police officer refusing to help a Mexican being robbed because he hates Mexicans - Revip
Except it is absolutely NOTHING like that at all. But this fact has been explained multiple times on this thread already.
There is nothing to suggest the bakers hate gays. They have a moral objection to gay marriage and prefer not to offer their services to a gay wedding ceremony.
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.
Living beyond one’s means involves credit. If you are not issued credit, then you cannot live beyond your means
Using cash reserves and liquidating assets to pay regular costs is living beyond means. It's a reasonable stop-gap to a short-term problem. The cult's problems are long-term.
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.
The baker should not be allowed to refuse service because the customer was gay. The issue was being asked to make a cake for a gay wedding.
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.
The bigoted baker would claim it violates his conscience/religious rights to bake a cake for the black couple
No it wouldn't that would rightly be illegal. This is NOT what happened in this case.
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.
Very pleased to see the right outcome in this case.
Nobody should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience even if we disagree with their opinions.
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.
My summary. Please tell me if I have facts wrong.
In short, the organisation has peaked.
However fast or slow it proves to be (SBF v Morph) the future is one of decline.
