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.
So, on ExJW reddit, I was labeled alt-right for holding the views that I espoused on this thread.
What has the world come to when a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, atheist, Mexican like myself is labeled alt-right because he doesn’t want the government to compel speech?
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.
Scientology has rich members and are experts at extracting their money.
For example, in response to an unprecedented appeal for money by Stephen Lett in 2015, where he said WT had an urgent need for extra funds, JWs on average responded by contributing less than $4 extra each. That’s probably less than most people carry in loose change. (Those who still carry change. I do.)
None of what you said doesn't mean that Watchtower won't continue to exist, even if they run out of money. They might shrink in numbers, have to sell off properties and downsize, but that doesn't mean they're going to "collapse" into oblivion.
And keep in mind, Scientology doesn't have nearly the amount of followers Watchtower does. They're estimated to have some 50,000 members. Let's say all 50,000 of those Scientologists are what you are referring to as "rich members." Watchtower would only need 0.625% of their 8,000,000 members to match Scientologists.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I saw someone earlier in the thread say this was a “narrow decision.”
How is a 7-2 vote a narrow decision?
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?
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.
