Anti-Christian bigots in Colorado call retreat

[jet57]

Already agreed they do agree with your identity politics and its view religion is oppressive. That was the point of the right-wing view of it.

Again; they prove the historical fact. So either prove it all wrong or shut about it Chris.

[Chris]

Again; they prove the historical fact. So either prove it all wrong or shut about it Chris.

But I agree that that is the neo-Marxian, postmodern narrative of identity politics.

[jet57]

But I agree that that is the neo-Marxian, postmodern narrative of identity politics.

So you can't prove it wrong.

Then it stands as fact.

[Chris]

So you can't prove it wrong.

Then it stands as fact.

But I agreed. What, are words like neo-Marxian, postmodern, identity politics above the reading level of Teen Vogue?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Well, let's start with this:

That paragraph right there shows a prejudice in the writer's mind which sinks any attempt to be objective: that is not objective journalism: it's right-wing hysteria over the fake news of attacks on the Christian religion.

Phillips may have felt sincere in his motivations, but discrimination against one's sexuality was the driving force of the suit: No laws respecting religion... It was the same thing as telling blacks that they couldn't sit at a lunch counter. As for what Diane Rice had to say:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp (The url works; highlight and click)

And here's some notes on Christianity and the Holocaust http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/je...shoshana-koff/
Please note the "edu" in the url.

So, just on the face of it your source article is right-wing BS, never mind how it fans the fake news flames about some sort war on Christianity.

So what you're saying is that because you're unhappy with a man's successful defense of his right to choose in the Supreme Court, in the face of explicitly admitted religious bigotry by the government if Colorado, the writer roper ting these facts is unreliable because he reported these facts.

What part if the Thirteenth Amendment confuses you?

[Chris]

So what you're saying is that because you're unhappy with a man's successful defense of his right to choose in the Supreme Court, in the face of explicitly admitted religious bigotry by the government if Colorado, the writer roper ting these facts is unreliable because he reported these facts.

What part if the Thirteenth Amendment confuses you?

Basically, according to jet, a conservative tells lies and a liberal tells the truth even when they both say the same thing.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Uh, noooo, I gave you two urls that are historic articles that validate what the commissioner said dude.

And, back to reality land, the Supreme Court, including a couple of the Rodent Justices, agreed that the fascist board was improperly biased against Christians and their persecution was unlawful thereby.

Explain why a private business owner should suffer state persecution for declining business. Did the prospective customer have a right to service? Cite the Thirteenth Amendment.

[jet57]

So what you're saying is that because you're unhappy with a man's successful defense of his right to choose in the Supreme Court, in the face of explicitly admitted religious bigotry by the government if Colorado, the writer roper ting these facts is unreliable because he reported these facts.

What part if the Thirteenth Amendment confuses you?

The man made no successful defense at all; he made emotionalized bigoted opinion.

(chuckle)

The 13th? What part of the constitution confuses YOU?

[Chris]

The man made no successful defense at all; he made emotionalized bigoted opinion.

(chuckle)

The 13th? What part of the constitution confuses YOU?

The OP cites an article that cites Justice Anthony Kennedy who cites Commissioner Diann Rice. Who exactly was emotional and do you expect to defend themselves? Rice, Kennedy, the author?

[Dr. Who]

He fails because all he says arrives at it's a right-wing opinion about a left-wing identity politics opinion. Well, of course it is.

"In both Europe and the United States some Christians went further, arguing that slavery was actually justified by the words and doctrines of the Bible.
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
— Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America[135]

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.
— Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...ews_on_slavery

While slavery was not condoned or justified by the majority of Christian faiths, it was used by some Christian sects with an agenda, to do just that. To argue otherwise is simply disingenuous as is denying that the long history of antisemitic teachings in Christian churches had nothing to do with justifying the historical persecution of Jews or indeed of the scapegoating of European Jews in the years leading up to and during WWII. Religion was also used to justify the murders of so-called witches in Salem and the murder of abortionists by certain members of the Westborough Baptist Church. You only need to argue freedom of religion when yours is not the dominant faith or dominant sect. Neither religion nor the freedom of religious belief takes precedence over the law. If it did, we would have fundamentalists of all kinds maiming and murdering apostates, heretics and adulterers at will without legal consequence.