Jehalapeno

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 739 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jehalapeno

• 
  138

  LEAKED: WHQ Accounts: 2016-2020 Budget

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  If Scientology is still going and hasn’t been brought down yet, it’s naive, ignorant and intellectually dense to think that Watchtower’s downfall is imminent.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  The cake retailers are there to make a cake for various situations for the general public as a public service.

  A custom cake doesn't qualify as a retail cake. Just as a mural artist can legally decline a request to paint a gay pride mural.

  You can't force an artist to create something they don't agree with. Cake decorating is an art.

  Forcing a Christian baker to decorate a cake to support an event that goes against his religious beliefs would be tantamount to forcing a Muslim journalist to write an article in support of atheism.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  No it would not because in doing so would be inciting prejudice and hatred toward a recognized minority group

  So you agree that no one is entitled to your labor, regardless of their protected status.
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  Why is there labor laws in most modernized countries that penalizes businesses for acting in prejudice against someone of certain religious affiliation or sexual identity (gay) ???

  So, Fink, since religious affiliation is protected, your government would compel you to decorate a "GOD HATES GAYS" cake for the Westboro Baptist Church?
  

  Or, would you instead do like this owner and try to make another business accommodation without compromising your ethics?
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  Why is there labor laws in most modernized countries that penalizes businesses for acting in prejudice against someone of certain religious affiliation or sexual identity (gay)

  This wasn't acting in prejudice.

  The gay couple was attempting to infringe on the owner's rights to practice their religion.
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  I feel discrimination laws are important to have.

  A case like this was not discrimination as he was still willing to do business with the couple.

  His only "transgression" against the leftist ideology was being unwilling to participate artistically in an event/occasion he disagreed with.

  The reason he was willing to sell the cakes he had already made is that he made the cakes for his business, not for a specific occasion.

  NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO YOUR LABOR, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  I saw someone earlier in the thread say this was a “narrow decision.”

  How is a 7-2 vote a narrow decision?
• 
  24

  For the Conspiracy Theorists

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  geoff jackson speaking at a france dedication:.

  then he said (i'm quoting him best i can remember, but you'll get the idea): "imagine if next week i go back to us and you see in the news that the whole gb was arrested for no reason.

  how'd you react?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  I was skeptical when I heard apostates talking about the “Tight Pants” talk. Then I went to my assigned replay of that meeting on the next day and it was all confirmed to me.
• 
  46

  Season 1 Episode 1 A&E Cults and Extreme Belief (Video)

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  https://www.aetv.com/shows/cults-and-extreme-belief/season-1it will post soon on site..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  I loved the show.

  I thought it was great and things like this will inoculate the public to think twice before listening to JWs.

  I did have one criticism, though. And this is just a criticism when putting myself in the shoes of an indoctrinated JW.

  The way A&E edited the show, it looked like the woman wasn't really crying. Like, I'm sure she was, but every time it looked like she was going to have tears streaming down her face, they cut away...it made the times she got choked up seem less genuine, from a critical point of view.

  I'm not blaming Romy for this. I think it was an editing issue. They should have shown her tears...

  If I was a JW watching that, my confirmation bias would focus on that and say, "She must be lying...she's not even really crying."
• 
  170

  UK justice..

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  tommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.

  yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.

  his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jehalapeno

  It may be legal in the UK to put a gag on media to prevent them from reporting on a court proceeding, but it doesn't make it right.

  It's legal in Pakistan to execute apostates of Islam. That doesn't make it right.

  Just because legal procedures are followed doesn't mean it's not abusing an individual's human rights.

  The principles of freedom of speech and the press must be defended at all cost. Change the law and sequester the Jury, if you're afraid they'll be tainted by reporting.