DescentBB

...no, wait.



So I guess if I were an Uber or taxi driver and I didn't like your politics, I should be able to abandon you somewhere and sneer as I drive away.

That's awesome.

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:44 pmThat's awesome.

Cool. So if I'm an EMS driver and you're my patient...and I find out you're left wing, I'll just dump you on the side of the road.

Let's be honest. If you were an EMS driver and I was your patient, you'd show me stupid cartoons on your phone.

If Republicans are going to fight to deny basic customer service to gay couples, turnabout is fair ★■◆●ing play.

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:05 pm Let's be honest. If you were an EMS driver and I was your patient, you'd show me stupid cartoons on your phone.

Like TG pointed out, let's not forget that nice principled baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding, based solely on his religious convictions. People will reap what they sow. In fact, that one's in the Bible.

Nightshade wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:58 pm

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:44 pmThat's awesome.

Cool. So if I'm an EMS driver and you're my patient...and I find out you're left wing, I'll just dump you on the side of the road.

Hahaha.. no.

Y'see, uber is a private business and can remove you from thrir premises (in this case, employees' cars) or deny you of services for whatever reason they wish. An EMS tech is a first responder and is considered an essential service.

The closese analogy would be denying a gay couple a wedding cake.... something you supported.

You, like a lot of republicans, lack self-awareness.

In the case of Uber, the service A) had been paid for, B) was not in violation of Uber's policy, and C) was not religiously motivated, thus not putting this in first amendment category.

In the case of that cake, it A) had not been paid for yet, B) the cake was in violation of company policy, and C) the refusal was religiously motivated, meaning that any attempt to force them to make the cake was in violation of their first amendment rights.

Even ignoring point C, the driver only would have been right if you could show that the passenger did violate Uber policy. The cake store owner would not have had to make the cake based on the company policy, and the fact that he had not already agreed to provide the cake, where the Uber driver already agreed to take the passenger to their destination.

Is this the state of Young Republicans these days? Instead of complaining, perhaps they should create their own market based solution to their problems. Uber, but for assholes.

Well, it wouldn't be in the first amendment territory anyways lightwolf, because the government isn't involved.

And in the case of your point C, freedom of religion means you can express your religion without fear of government persecution. It doesn't mean you can use it to deny a paying customer what they want. It also means that their policy can be challenged in a court of law, if they so desired.

Was the customer acting on behalf of the government? No. Was the government threatening retaliation in the form of a criminal charge if they did not serve the customer? No. So the claim of religious persecution does not hold up. Not to mention, it also prevents the government from creating, sanctioning, or forcing upon you a State religion

So while all of our horrified eyes are glued to the disaster that is Trainwreck Trump, Mike Pence is working hard in the background to recreate his vision of what he thinks what this country should be, a "White, Christian, America.

http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/10/ ... ike-pence/

In this sense, both Trump and Pence are restorationists. And their restorationist visions for America are complementary. Trump’s is racial; Pence’s is religious. Together, their ticket embodies a “white Christian America” in decline, as Robert P. Jones has powerfully described it. In a Trump-Pence ticket, white Christian America not only hopes to resist the forces demographic and cultural change, but to restore white Protestant Americans (especially men) to their place of unchallenged preeminence.

And I see this is just another in a series of farted in the wind posts by NS who rarely bothers to comment on what he's posted.

And is that behaviour at all suprising? It started way back in the day with his 'damn hippies' schtick.

What's funny is that a lot of those old "damn hippies" from the 60's are now conservative Republican baby boomers.