White men ain’t always on the side of a black man…
So being the first black president didn’t have any affect on how he was covered by the media?
This will not end well…
Sweet. Let’s get back to those days.
Pretty sure any business in this day and age that would attempt this, despite having the constitutional right to do so, would not last long as a business. Between the niceties of boycotts and protests, to the not-so-niceties of harassment, death threats, physical violence and vandalism, no business would dare try that shit now.
2 Likes
“WE SERVE WHITE’S…” Dumb motherfuckers. Here is a big sign that not only says, “I’m racist,” but also says, “I’m fucking stupid, look at my shitty English grammar.”
1 Like
You can imagine what kind of people put that up.
It was the right decision by the Supreme Court
1 Like
This was a pretty open and shut case because freedom of religion trumps most every other law on the books. For the court to rule against the bakery, they would essentially require judicial activism to the degree that said decision would essentially ignore multiple historical rulings and law. If the left hates this ruling, then change the laws, but you aren’t going to like it when those new laws are weaponized against your team. The hammer of the state government shouldn’t be used against political opponents in this manner, it’s ludicrous.
From the SCOTUS ruling:
“For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case
violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws
or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The
government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise,
cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs
of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes
judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs
and practices.”
2 Likes
Are you saying that there are no anti-religious conservatives?
Man, this just reads like a propaganda piece from a movie or something the Soviets wrote back in the 50s.
only this administration could discover there was a setting beyond full retard.
the doj answered this question back during the nixon administration.
anyway, trump doesn’t realize that giuliani is hedging his answer. which leads to this…
i could make a joke here about trump’s knowledge of the constitution but why bother? the response from trump’s own party members is hilarious enough.
apparently, ted “constitutionalist” cruz was so stunned by trump’s stupidity. he was silent for 18 seconds before he started copping pleas rather than answer the question.
former tea party congressman
apparently, sarah sanders had a tough day. she not only had to clean up trump’s shit. she also had to clean up her own shit after she got caught lying.
is this your king, cult45? lol…you people are looking even more suspect than usual. sad.
I don’t get these guys.
I mean I understand that people have their religious beliefs, especially in regards to homosexuality. We just have to accept that there are people who view the lifestyle a part from the person. These religious views are shitty but that is their prerogative.
What i don’t get is why can’t these guys just do better at declining: “Oh we are full at the moment, come back later or i can recommend you someone who is also good?” would make them understand. Why be so upfront with the no and endure whatever pop-culture antagonizing that will be sent to you directly?
Look at the Taxi drivers around Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx… they don’t stop for black people (unless they look like they are stuck in the atomic era) during the night due to experiences; sure it’s stereotyping but at the same time experience is a teacher to most. They don’t stop and roll their windows down just to say no to the black person, they pretend to not see them.
Because you can’t get into heaven if you don’t tell all them homersexuals that they’re going against the will of God.
2 Likes
A man took a knee during Trump’s little replacement event earlier today
What about freedom of religion? You know well that if the baker was Muslim…
nothing really began. there was no landmark precedent set and neither party got what they wanted from the case. in fact, the court’s ruling was very narrow in scope and dependent entirely on the facts of this particular case because it focuses on phillips treatment at the hands of the CCRC. the court pretty much admitted they’re kicking the can down the road when it comes to resolving these issues.
it’s funny you mention religion. kennedy stated that government officials cannot act on the basis of religious animus. it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS will apply the same logic and principles in trump’s upcoming travel ban case. which wouldn’t even be a conversation if trump had kept his islamophobia to himself, but you know trump and his culture warriors. they have to “tell it like it is” because they’re “anti-PC”. which is why the schadenfreude is so sublime when it blows up in their faces.
speaking of schadenfreude and culture warriors, trump tried to rally his troops after he canceled the eagles WH visit.
fox news even tried to help him, but they screwed up and insulted the christians on the team who were merely praying.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11482627/Screen_Shot_2018_06_05_at_12.53.41_PM.png)
i wonder how many trump stans started burning their eagles jerseys before the retraction?
Propaganda machine working overtime.
Thank god we have the internet in these dire times.
1 Like
hahahaha Jesus fucking Christ
During an apparently difficult call to discuss import tariffs with Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister, Trump reached into his historical locker as he searched for just the right metaphor to express his national security concerns about those notoriously restive neighbors to the north.
He reportedly asked: “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?”
A point was made, should people be required to get a license/permit to have a child?
While normally I would think not, but if the government is going to be basically raising half of the kids in this country with food, shelter and education… maybe the government should have a say in who can have a kid or not. After all they are the ones paying for it in the end.
In which case what would the government require from a parents to ensure that they would be good parents? That would allow them to give a license/permit? 2 parent house hold? That you currently have employment? Money in the savings account? That you have healthcare?
At which point I guess you could apply for a permit before you start “trying” to get pregnant. At which point you get the permit and you would present that to the hospital to allow the child birth to continue. If you don’t have a permit, then an abortion is performed. As you have not demonstrated to the government that you are a suitable parent for a child. Then every time you attempt to get pregnant you’d have to reapply. As just because you can afford 1 child, doesn’t mean you can afford 2.