XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 12/6/22 11:45 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:   
   > On 12/6/2022 8:22 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 12/6/2022 3:28 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>> On 12/5/22 21:38, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/5/2022 7:05 PM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/5/22 15:13, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/5/2022 11:43 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/5/22 12:01, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/5/2022 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> https://thefederalist.com/   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Lie sites lies not read.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>> The intolerant leftist mob is coming for Christians everywhere,   
   >>>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Here we go with Hartung's "poor persecuted Christians" bullshit   
   >>>>>>>> again.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Christians are not "persecuted" in any way in this country.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yet a restaurant refused to serve a Christian group because of   
   >>>>>>> their religious beliefs.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's not my understanding. They refused to serve them because of   
   >>>>>> their anti-gay beliefs, and it would not matter if those beliefs   
   >>>>>> were motivated by religion or something secular.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You are splitting hairs.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Splitting hairs? It goes to the heart of the legal and moral issue.   
   >>>> Such discrimination is not on the basis of religion and hence is   
   >>>> neither illegal or immoral.   
   >>>   
   >>> It still amounts to the same thing. The restaurant was acting within   
   >>> their rights, as are the various businesses who refuse to be a part   
   >>> of same sex marriages.   
      
   It is their right to NOT serve a uniquely Christian or Jewish or Muslim   
   meal on the menu, the same as the bakery with "gay" wedding cakes. Maybe   
   gays should request the secular wedding cake with a man and a woman   
   figurine with no free words written on them and that are   
   limited/censored to the bakery's choices like TWITTER censors their   
   public forum. The Cake is a PUBLIC forum seen by all the wedding guests.   
      
   But can you deny "persons" equal access as you do to the gun owners? And   
   if so, is the Power to force service or deny service that of the   
   Government's to write in a law to force the store owner to do as the   
   Government mandates or is it the PROPERTY RIGHT of the owner to make   
   those decisions and post them at the door? And the Government is the one   
   being limited to comply with the *EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE*   
      
   I have no issue with a property owner denying guns on their property. Or   
   leaving "gay" wedding cakes off the list of foods served or produced by   
   their kitchen, and refusing to bake a gay wedding cake or a Muslim pork   
   free kitchen dinner or wedding cakes or Catholic "Fish on Friday Dinner"   
   or a Tibetan Yak butter cake or a Kosher Jewish cake. Or denying gays   
   access to their property since gays are NEITHER MEN OR WOMEN according   
   to gays.  If they re simply persons they have the same RIGHTS as the   
   other persons, and no gay right to a gay cake. They have the RIGHTS of a   
   person and that does NOT include the RIGHT to order a gay wedding cake.   
      
   That would mean that gays have no extra ability to order any cake, they   
   can order the standard wedding cake sold to Jews and Muslims and women   
   and men with the limited text and art and ingredients that the bakery   
   decides it can or wants to provide.  The reason for the limitation of   
   the menu is irrelevant because it's property RIGHTS over being gay or   
   any specific "type" of person that the Democrats care to invent. And   
   Democrats have created hundreds of FAKE sexual identity "personas" that   
   don't exist and a Bakery can't adhere to all their WOKE language and   
   vegan and other demands that they could later be sued for NOT adapting to.   
      
   Racial equality is NOT above property RIGHTS of the owner... but any   
   owner that uses the DNA acknowledged race or the two DNA genders of   
   person's or the RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms to do business or infringe   
   on other RIGHTS would mean they can't get Government grants or loans or   
   be contracted to any form of partnership or get financial support of   
   government.   
      
   Like the separation between Religion and Government, there is also a   
   separation between the Government and any business or person that uses   
   race/gender of (persons) and religious RIGHTS and Gun RIGHTS or other   
   RIGHTS to refuse business then Government tax dollars are banned to them   
   as well as any government partnering or assistance.   
      
   I suppose we could set-up a background check system within the   
   Government to separate those businesses from any Government connections   
   and/or recources.   
      
   If it's OK to ban Religions from Government resources and to infringe   
   with people buying a fire-arm  then it must be OK to force them to   
   undergo a background check before they can get a business license... the   
   same as getting a gun permit or license or registering it.   
      
   And NOT having that business license must be a felony... since it is   
   with a gun.   
      
   >>   
   >> I forgot. You are movement libertarian who   
   >   
   > Hartung is not in *any* way libertarian.  He is a right-wing statist.   
   >   
      
   But I am pretty close to a Libertarian, I'm what you might call a   
   Constitutional-Libertarian.   
      
   Which is what I consider the Founders that wrote the Constitution, they   
   tried to keep to the idea of LIBERTY but excepting some limited Government.   
      
   *The best government possible is the least government necessary*   
      
      
   --   
   -Reality Matters-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)