[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55trap / b2 / dempart / f / polru / truebrit / veganism / webcams ]

/b2/ - Random 2.0

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Global rule | Dost test


File: 0efcb4051f5fb25⋯.jpg (40.54 KB, 799x523, 799:523, Baker.jpg)

 No.245505

You remember the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a fag wedding, and won the court case against him.

I think every degenerate in country is going to sue that guy until one of them wins.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-christian-cakeshop-sued-a-third-time-for-discrimination/ar-AACJecD?li=BBnbfcL

 No.245512

love thy neighbor


 No.245527

He should counter sue for harassment and discrimination and take every penny they have.


 No.245534

>>245527

he could try loving his neighbor like a biblical christian would


 No.245548

>>245505

What don't these fuckers understand? There's a big difference between not serving someone simply because of their sexuality and not providing a service based on principle.


 No.245555

>>245505

Turn the other cheek.

On a serious note though, this is an open and shut clear case of freedom of association. You don't have to provide your goods/services to anyone you don't fucking feel like. Faggots can fuck off and make their own cake.


 No.245572

>>245534

Biblical stuff.. heh heh

Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with another male as he would with a woman, both have committed a repulsive act. They are certainly to be put to death.


 No.245574

>>245555

judge should have told baker to embrace all christian tenets (love thy neighbor as thyself) or go fuck himself


 No.245597

>>245555

>You don't have to provide your goods/services to anyone you don't fucking feel like

That's not exactly true. You can't refuse service based on race, gender or sexuality. But the Baker case is in another category.


 No.245600

fake christian implores government for help defending part of his religion


 No.245604

Maybe if he converts to Islam publicly (by remain Christian privately) those faggots will fuck off.


 No.245613

>>245597

>You can't refuse service based on race, gender or sexuality.

First, that's bullshit. Where the fuck is my freedom of association? If I want to refuse service, then fuck off, why should I be forced to bake a cake by the government? These are customers, not employees.

Second, how do you prove that sort of discrimination? It seems so easy to get around with loopholes that only an idiot could get caught in a discrimination lawsuit. If a faggot comes into your shop, just make up some bullshit excuse about closing or that you have a years long waiting list. They literally can't prove shit unless you outright admit you won't bake them a faggot cake because they are degenerate homos.


 No.245617

>>245574

But instead the Baker won,, and he's going to keep winning.

What's with you faggots? You won. You get to be married and whatever.

But you can't make us love and praise you.

Because you're degenerates.


 No.245619

>>245597

That does not count for reprobates, God has rejected them and hardened their hearts.


 No.245628

>>245613

>if I want to refuse service, then fuck off, why should I be forced to bake a cake by the government?

It goes against anti-discrimination laws.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

>Second, how do you prove that sort of discrimination?

That's another matter, dumbfuck.


 No.245641

>>245628

>It goes against anti-discrimination laws.

>anti-discrimination laws

That sounds like the most jewish bullshit I've ever heard of and completely infringes on freedom. This is clown world.


 No.245662

>>245641

>That sounds like the most jewish bullshit I've ever heard of and completely infringes on freedom

If most businesses refused service to, say, blacks, that would infringe on black people's freedom.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws, but the Baker case doesn't violate those laws.


 No.245663

File: d08e7e147a6ab94⋯.jpg (118.4 KB, 1200x1156, 300:289, gay_agenda.jpg)

>>245555

>Turn the other cheek.

That was a clever way to insult someone. They couldn't strike with the left hand (remember there was no toilet paper), a backhand strike was how you'd strike someone who's beneath you like a slave for a soldier, but by turning the other cheek the soldier would have to slap/punch the guy, which (at the time) is how you'd hit someone equal to you.


 No.245678

>>245662

>If most businesses refused service to, say, blacks, that would infringe on black people's freedom.

That's called freedom. No one owes you shit. If you're a nigger, find a nigger bakery. If you can't find a nigger bakery, then maybe you don't belong in this country and you should fuck off to africa.


 No.245684

>>245662

>every business refuses service to blacks

>every business gets sued and goes out of business

>no more businesses exist to serve blacks


 No.245690

File: fed950967c5fae3⋯.mp4 (3.58 MB, 480x848, 30:53, Black_People_Eat_Cakes.mp4)

>>245597

>You can't refuse service

Writing on a cake is a form of art, which is a form of speech. You can't force someone to speak whatever you want, faggot.


 No.245698

>>245690

It shouldn't even apply only to service, but to association of all kinds. What gives some random faggot the right to force me to do business with him?


 No.245705

>>245534

>>245512

>>245600

>faggot apologists pretend to care what Biblical canon has to say

Christ told pedophiles to literally strap a millstone around their necks and toss themselves in the sea, God has very similar sentiments for other unapologetic sinners.


 No.245710

Why can't the left undestand freedom of association.

I don't agree with this guys views, so if I was in the area I wouldn't spend my money there and tell others that I know who feel the same not to spend their money there and why, letting the market do its thing.

Instead they have made the man a martyr and made people in favor of gay rights look like crazed zealots who are trying to bully the poor persecuted Christian. Now his story is used as example by nearly ever Christian group in the US and he is seen as a fucking hero, while painting people who mean well as monsters who want him and his family to starve on the streets for disagreeing with them or worse.


 No.245712

>>245678

>That's called freedom

Freedom is relative. In fact, it's just a construct.

>no one owes you shit

>TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ARE VIOLATING CONSERVATIVES RIGHTS!!

Lol

>>245690

If you're reading comprehension didn't suck ass, you'd know that I agree with you.


 No.245716

>>245712

who are you quoting?


 No.245718

>>245712

Fuck off communist.


 No.245728

>>245712

You're a construct.


 No.245731

>>245716

Are you really gonna tell me you agree with Twitter's right to ban conservatives? I think we both know you have double standards.


 No.245748

The plan isn't to win, it's to force so many lawsuits you make them go bankrupt and have to shut down


 No.245750

>>245731

Private companies can do whatever the shit they want concerning their goods and services being allowed to customers. If they get government funding though, then they are the ones with double standards and should be regulated or stop taking tax money.


 No.245765

>>245731

Allowing hate speech on a site with millions of visitors is different from a cakeshop refusing service because someones sexuality.


 No.245772

>>245750

>If they get government funding though, then they are the ones with double standards and should be regulated or stop taking tax money

Lol that's what I thought.

No, that's not how it works, buddy. If the government wants to stop giving them tax breaks because of their discrimination, then so be it.


 No.245790

>>245765

Of course it's different. However, the bakery didn't discriminate based on sexuality; they refused to provide a service because gay marriage was against their religion, and baking a cake for the wedding would be a form of support.


 No.245791

>>245772

If you start taking tax money, you forfeit your immunity to regulation. Stop being a leech on tax payers if you want the freedoms that come with being a private entity. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.


 No.245795

>a third time

How is this even allowed? The guy will never bake a cake ever again and will constantly be in legal battles for the rest of his life.


 No.245796

>>245731

Not him but yes.

Just as they are free to run their shitty site how they please, I am free not to use their shitty site.

Twitter was always shit and a study came out that is actually makes regular users less intelligent. Fuck'em.

What I don't like is that because of governmental regulation people can't easily form alternative payment systems, which then crazed activist use to attack the finances of those they disagree with.

I think the solution will be to move away from FIAT, but time will tell. Until then I don't use Paypal (I have actually had a beef with paypal for over a decade due to their anti-free speech), Stripe, Chase, or Mastercard. Good thing American Express is taken more places then ever now days.


 No.245801

>>245791

>if you start taking tax money, you forfeit your immunity to regulation

Go ahead and cite the laws that back this up.


 No.245806

>>245795

They are trying to bankrupt him one way or another.

Hope it gets thrown out fast.


 No.245810

>>245690

Lol that little girl is too cute.


 No.245811

>>245801

>t. kike leech

I can't wait to stave your head in when SHTF.


 No.245813

you know what they say third time's the charm


 No.245819

>>245796

Yeah, I'm with you. All I'm saying is that discrimination that's solely based on race, gender or sexuality is not the same as discrimination that's based on principle.


 No.245822

>>245790

Idk what year that year that baker is living in but in the year im in christians dont care what two people do in private anymore.


 No.245823

>>245811

Yeah, any day now, stormweenie


 No.245827

>>245822

Unfortunately most Christians certainly do care.


 No.245842

>>245600

>>245512

>>245534

You don't get to have access to the golden rule when you're going to take a man's livelihood because he refuses to bake you a cake, faggots, go skip rope on the highway.


 No.245844

>>245505

You know, he's not the only baker in town. Faggots just literally want to do it out of spite. What a fucking bitchy, cunty mentality to have.


 No.245845

>>245819

"Discrimination" laws are made up bullshit to begin with, it's a complete farce on individual rights. This all started thanks to the (((Civil Rights Act))) and is thanks to kikes destroying the nation. In a free and just society before (((women's rights))) and (((civil rights))), you were free to offend whoever you fucking wanted to. This country is dead.


 No.245856

A wedding cake baker is essentially an artist working on commission.

If you want something commissioned by an artist, you have to find one who will do what you want. The artist gets to choose whether or not to take the commission. The baker's religion is just a bonus, because with Christianity he has solid grounds that a "gay wedding" cake conflicts with his belief system.


 No.245859

>>245856

The biggest tragedy is that you even have to have religious beliefs as a justification to refuse association to begin with. Freedom is dead.


 No.245863

>>245827

Not in the EU, I know in the US people are a lot more racist.


 No.245867

>>245863

thank goodness for that


 No.245883

>>245845

>"discrimination laws are made up

Literally all laws are made up. Whether or not they're bullshit is a matter of perspective.

It must be exhausting going through life so bitter and hateful. You should relax.

>>245844

>bakery is forced to provide service for gay weddings

>gays from all over the country start ordering cakes for their weddings

>baker becomes rich af

>has a change of heart about gay marriage

>hangs pride flag outside his shop

>renames his Bakery "The Gaykery"


 No.245885

>>245859

>Freedom is dead

I wish fucking normalcattle could get this through their thick fucking skulls. We don't have freedom, just the illusion of it.


 No.245894

>>245883

You post like a tranny from /leftypol/.


 No.245896

File: 4ed9b0352f9d280⋯.png (1.38 MB, 1453x734, 1453:734, trannies_child_sex_lactati….png)

>>245822

I used not to care either, look were it got us. Faggots should have all their rights stripped, then they'd be back in the closed and use their propaganda to be beaten up less often instead of brainwashing kids.


 No.245902

>>245894

You post like a simple-minded moron from /pol/


 No.245905

>>245902

You will never pass, faggot.


 No.245909

>>245844

Yeah,, I heard that. I also heard the Trannie freak was going around to several places looking for someone to refuse him service just to start a lawsuit. (Is this true,, maybe)


 No.245913

>>245885

Freedom isn't granted.

You have it by default and have to vigilantly defend it from the assholes who make up bullshit to try and take it away from you.

No matter what some shit people write down or vote on I am free regardless. I take my own individual freedom and will defend it to the death by any means necessary.

If you want to be free then be free. Don't let anyone hold you down and find a way to do what you want by hook or crook.


 No.245918

>>245913

but only in le minecraft of course!


 No.245919

>>245548

morally there isn't, both are equally and completely legitimate. legally there might be, i don't know or care.

>>245574

>govt. should force people into ecnomic transactions they don't want to make

>govt. should force people to not be hypocrites

>govt. should mandate the correct interpretation of religious texts

specific trumps general unless otherwise specified, read literally any DnD source book to see that unspoken assumption understand by everyone

>>245600

>don't force me to do this against my will

<lol, you're asking my help to not do it?

are you retarded?

>>245628

>It goes against anti-discrimination laws

Did you even read his post? He doesn't claim it's legal, he claims it's morally permissible.

>>245617

>What's with you faggots?

plenty of us hate the SJWs who pretend to represent us

>>245710

>Why can't the left undestand freedom of association.

Because they're utilitarians and not deontologists. They understand, they just don't care.

>>245712

>it's just a construct

and this is a discussion about what that construct should be


 No.245921

>>245628

The courts also ruled that you Can legitimately discriminate based on Political Beliefs (see the case where a restaurant refused service to a man in a MAGA hat.) So, simply state up front that you do not serve Demorats, "Progressives" or Communists.


 No.245922

Baker should learn to love thy neighbor and not judge, judging is ONLY to be done by our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus

not by men


 No.245926

File: aa560c4a0e0950a⋯.jpg (15.66 KB, 280x270, 28:27, aa560c4a0e0950acef518711fb….jpg)


 No.245931


 No.245935

>>245922

He can love them and still not bake them a cake for being filthy sinners.


 No.245942

>>245931

Yeah that would be good to hear.


 No.245944

>>245935

Do you want every business you walk in to to judge your sin status and judge if you are worthy of being treated well?


 No.245945

File: 06507c24e88d85e⋯.jpg (194.12 KB, 1120x1600, 7:10, 002.jpg)

>>245728

>You're a construct.

Yay!


 No.245948

>>245604

This is the real solution. Nobody will fucking say one word to this guy or try to sue him if he just makes it an Islamic bakery.

Because THAT'S totally fucking fine for these faggots. This guy really needs to sue for religious discrimination.


 No.245950


 No.245951

File: 7ef078d36439a58⋯.png (950 B, 220x147, 220:147, 220px-Agorism_flag.svg.png)


 No.245958

>>245944

If you walk in there fucking announcing your degeneracy to everyone, you deserve whatever decision they make on whether or not to serve you.


 No.245962

File: d6194f94c6cec46⋯.png (662.85 KB, 865x1300, 173:260, ClipboardImage.png)

>>245690

Oi! Your child just violated the anti hate law of 2003! Get in the paddy you criminal scum!


 No.245976

>>245919

>morally there isn't, both are equally and completely legitimate

Because you said so? OK

>he doesn't claim it's legal, he claims it's morally permissible

I interpreted "that's bullshit" as "that's not true". Why are you even commenting on this, you pedantic fuck?

>and this is a discussion about what that construct should be

Based on his posts, he didn't seem to understand the fact that freedom isn't an objective thing


 No.245982

>>245944

I keep my sinning private so they wouldn't know anyway.

I am not a attention whore like faggots who feel the need to rope everyone around them into their faggotry. Nor do I feel the compulsion to bend the world and everyone in it to my will like the zealots on the left.

If a busness didn't want my money because of my behavor then oh well, guess I will shop somewhere else that doesn't know or care, or even prefers my kind.

The market will see the demand and supply my needs as there is money to be made.


 No.245987

>>245944

Maybe I have enough fucking sense not to advertise my sins to the world.

Try that you fucking flamer.


 No.245990

>>245628

>It goes against anti-discrimination laws.

<my sauce counters my own claim

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law.


 No.245998

>>245976

The civil rights act and aftermath it caused to the legal decisions of this country are illegitimate and introduced by jews in order to enact more white genocide.


 No.246002

>>245505

Couldn't he just bake the fucking cake, and let whoever the fuck is getting married but their stupid fucking names on it. Why shit gotta be this way fam?


 No.246007

>>245987

You don't know what part of your existence another person might judge to be sinful


 No.246011

>>245690

It is weird to me.

British little girls are adorable, but their women are generally pretty bad in every way.

Polite sage for being off topic.


 No.246017

>>246002

>bake the fucking cake, you bigot

Government forcing you to make personal business transactions against your will. Clown world.


 No.246024

>>246002

Because this is a principle issue for them now, because the guy is christian.

If he was islamic he'd never be sued or have shit said to him by anyone. Because faggots are hypocritical as fuck.


 No.246027

>>246007

They can only judge it if you make it visible.


 No.246033

>>246007

Hide your power level, you autistic faggot freak.


 No.246046

File: 46598612733ea0e⋯.jpg (215.59 KB, 682x1024, 341:512, gay pride.jpg)

>>246007

>>246007

This man who just walking around with his ass out begging people to fuck it,, how was he supposed to know that would offend anyone.


 No.246048

>>245990

>so gays are not a protected group under the federal law

In 20 states, they are. Not sure about whether Colorado is one of them tbh.

>>245998

Ok


 No.246053

>>246024

>If he was islamic he'd never be sued or have shit said to him by anyone. Because faggots are hypocritical as fuck.

They know better, and muslims are for whatever reason higher on the progressive stack then gays.

Leftist only go after targets they think are weak enough for them to break.

It is the reason why they complain about old ass songs no one cares about but don't say a peep about rap music or metal. It is because they know they would get blown the fuck out if they even tried.


 No.246055

>>246017

>>246017

If he was Islamic he might get deported. In any case it's because these people derpy as religion. Muslim or christian any organized faith is supreme faggotry and we're supposed to have a separation of church and state in the US anyway. Also my original point stands. If gays trigger this guy, just let them put their names on it.


 No.246058

File: 5c77d0381374391⋯.png (2.89 MB, 2048x1479, 2048:1479, bakery.png)

>>245534

Random faggots litigiously harassing a bakery owner are not neighbors. If they got to know him and treated him with a sense of respect, then maybe they'd be neighbors that could be loved, but they're just obnoxious faggots on a twisted moral crusade.


 No.246067

>>245976

>Because you said so?

Because a society with minimal regulation is preferable, so that is the society we should implement.

>I interpreted "that's bullshit" as "that's not true".

So did I until I read the rest of his reply where he specifically asks why he /should/ be forced to, not why he /will/ be forced to.

>he didn't seem to understand the fact that freedom isn't an objective thing

No more than you do:

>that would infringe on black people's freedom

Both of these would normally be read simply as advocacy for what we should agree upon.


 No.246071

>>245976

>Why are you even commenting on this, you pedantic fuck?

PS: In case I'm wrong and you change my mind. If that happens then per my own judgment I will have moved closer to truth.


 No.246072

>>246055

Better yet, the faggots can buy some cake mix and bake their own goddamn cake.


 No.246084

>>246002

>why take a principled stand against tyranny when it's more convenient to not


 No.246088

>>246072

There is literally a gay bakery within driving distance of dudes shop.

They are just bullying dude to make a point.


 No.246091

>>246027

>They can only judge it if you make it visible.

someone might decide your name is sinful, or your skin color


 No.246099

>>246072

IDGAF either way. I was just trying to point out there's sensible solution to this fucking idiocy.

>>246084

Lol doing shit because of a fucking stupid desert religion=principles stand against tyranny. BTW the US govt is tyranny.


 No.246100

>>246091

okay. I go next door to a competitor.


 No.246103

File: 8df4d8e1f331749⋯.jpeg (392.96 KB, 2048x1479, 2048:1479, 8df4d8e1f331749d0ff857f76….jpeg)

>>245628

This law has nothing to do with a "gender-transition cake" unless you psychopaths are willing to admit that being transgender is a disability.


 No.246109

>>246067

>because a society with minimal regulation is preferable, so that is the society we should implement

"Minimal" is rather vague. It depends on the regulations.

>so did I until I read the rest of his reply where he specifically asks why he /should/ be forced to, not why he /will/ be forced to

"Should" doesn't necessarily imply that he's not already.

>that would infringe on black people's freedom

I was highlighting the fact that freedom is relative. It depends on power.


 No.246118

>>246099

The initial refusal was christcukery (and his right), the fight to not be forced to enter a transaction against his will is a principled stand against tyranny.

Of course the US's govt. is a tyranny.


 No.246119

>>246088

Even though it's all manners of kiked to have the man's freedom infringed on like this trying to force him to endure a business transaction he doesn't want to do, the more offensive part of it is the laziness and pettiness of the faggots.

>can't get something you want

>complain and blame everyone else until society is forced to change to accommodate your lazy ass

What happened to personal responsibility and self sufficiency? It's not limited to a cake, if I can't get something I want, I'll start looking up ways to obtain it and create it myself instead of bitching until someone gives it to me.


 No.246154

>>246119

>What happened to personal responsibility and self sufficiency?

This is the oppression olympics, neither of those things are relevant.

I will laugh my fucking ass off when faggots & other races are in the majority of everything & suddenly straight white guys hold all the oppression cards.

How fucking fun that shit is going to be.


 No.246157

>>246118

>the fight to not be forced to enter a transaction against his will.

You're not getting it. The US govt is a transaction against ones will. Look, bake the cake don't bake the cake I don't care. But if you do and you insist on still being a christcuck. Just sell a naming kit to them for like a trillion dollars or some shit.


 No.246162

>>246109

>"Minimal" is rather vague. It depends on the regulations.

What matters isn't the entirety of the law, but whether it permits people to do business with who they please. Mandating people treat everyone equally is not required to maintain a functional society, therefore it is not a part of any minimal regulations.

>"Should" doesn't necessarily imply that he's not already.

I didn't claim anything about what the law says. I don't know or care.

>I was highlighting the fact that freedom is relative.

I wasn't criticizing that claim, I was pointing out that he had exactly as much reason to believe you thought morality was objective as you did to believe he thought that. Neither of you should have concluded the other thought morality was objective with any real conviction.


 No.246180

>>246048

>In 20 states, they are. Not sure about whether Colorado is one of them tbh.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that state laws are subordinate to federal laws and regulations.


 No.246194

>>245505

>I think every degenerate in country is going to sue that guy until one of them wins

Bingo. I'm sure that jew Soros or one of his ilk is funding the lawyers.


 No.246209

>>245505

If I was him I'd make them a cake with my piss in the frosting.


 No.246244

>>246157

>The US govt is a transaction against ones will

You're free to go back over the wall if you don't like it.


 No.246245

>>246162

>What matters isn't the entirety of the law, but whether it permits people to do business with who they please

Ok, and I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality.

>Mandating people treat everyone equally is not required to maintain a functional society, therefore it is not a part of any minimal regulations

Depends on what you mean by "treat people equally".

>I didn't claim anything about what the law says

No, you claimed that he was merely arguing what's morally permissible. Try to keep up.

>I wasn't criticizing that claim, I was pointing out that he had exactly as much reason to believe you thought morality was objective as you did to believe he thought that

Well, he was free to get it on record just like I did.

>Neither of you should have concluded the other thought morality was objective with any real conviction.

Notice how I didn't say anything about whether or not morality was objective.

You like to argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?


 No.246257

>>246157

>You're not getting it.

My position is that it's his right to not bake the cake, and the legal hasstle of defending that right is worth it.

I think your position is that it's his right to not bake the cake, but the legal hasstle of defending that right isn't worth it.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood.


 No.246264

>>245534

>>245574

>>245600

>>245822

>>245922

Im lmaoing @ you faggots who clearly have a surface level at best understanding of the bible. if you arent religous dont use it as an arguement against people who disagree with you because even protestants will be more familiar with the bible than you.

lets just do some math.

1.6% of the population is gay.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

96% of child molesters are male

https://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-sex-offenders.html

25% of victims of child molestation are male

https://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/index.html

therefore 1,6% of the population is responsible for roughly 25% of child molestation

>1.6 divided by 25 = 15.625

each % accounts for 15.625% of child molestation

>96 divided by 75 = 1.28

so each % accounts for 1.28% of child molestation

>so 15.625 divided by 1.28

>12.2

Gay men are 12.2 times as likely to molest a child as a streight man. 46% of homosexuals experienced homosexual molestation as a child. homosexuality is a parasitic nature that reproduces through molestation.


 No.246274

File: 5d988fb0658f31b⋯.png (717.78 KB, 516x1039, 516:1039, 996.png)

>>246209

They'd probably like that, though


 No.246280

>muh discrimination

holy shit just find another baker who will bake your shitty fag cake for you

it is not like there is only 2 bakery stores in town, right?

and besides, he is a private business man

he can choose whom he wants to employ or work with and whom he does not want to work for

fag society


 No.246283

>>246280

>he can choose whom he wants to employ or work with and whom he does not want to work for

Not if the kike judges have anything to say about it, goy.


 No.246288

>>246264

Too long, didn't read.


 No.246297

>>246209

I knew of this thread went on long enough, we'd get a solution to this dilemma.


 No.246306

File: 54d3cd06146f8f2⋯.jpg (339.48 KB, 750x699, 250:233, being gay.jpg)

>>246288

its maybe two paragraphs brainlet.


 No.246310

>>245505

Double-Jeopardy would have kicked in right? So what are the different charges? They're eventually going to have this guy diplomatically immune…


 No.246311

>>246288

that's because you can't read dysnigger. if you could you'd still have a board.


 No.246314

>>246257

No "t" in hassle, fam.


 No.246317

>>246314

faggot


 No.246318

>>246257

>it's his right to not bake the cake, and the legal hassle of defending that right is worth it.

It is and it isn't is right. Being that constitutionally we're a secular nation. His religious beliefs should not belong in business transactions.

>your position is that it's his right to not bake the cake, but the legal hassle of defending that right isn't worth it.

My position is none of this needs to happen and the whole thing is largely a waste of everyone's times.


 No.246324

>>246310

How long until he can legally gas faggots?


 No.246327

>>246317

Bitch, I bathe in puss!


 No.246345

>>246324

I'm starting to think the whole human race needs to go tbh


 No.246349

>>246245

>Ok, and I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality.

My point is that a minimal set of regulations don't include that one. If you think a minimal set do, please argue for that. If you don't, please argue for a nonminimal set.

>Depends on what you mean

"the ability to discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality" doesn't cause a dysfunctional society therefore isn't prohibited by minimal regulations.

I interpreted >>246109 as:

>"Should" doesn't necessarily imply that he's not already [required to by law]

If that isn't what you intended, please correct me.

>You like to argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

I like to argue because it forces me to think things through in detail, and has a history of turning up inconsistencies and mistakes in my beliefs.


 No.246353

File: 31dd6a02040c44d⋯.jpg (66.1 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 435345t34t.jpg)

>>246345

I can't wait for the singularity. Bioforms are an imperfect implementation of sentient life.


 No.246366

>>246283

Actually the judges already sided with him, twice.


 No.246394

>>246314

thanks (>>246317 isn't me BTW)

>>246318

Sorry for miscommunicating, when I say "X is a right" I'm not making a claim about the law or reality, I'm advocating for a specific policy wrt the social contract.

>My position is none of this needs to happen and the whole thing is largely a waste of everyone's times.

My position is that establishing this freedom in law via precedent is worthwhile.


 No.246416

>>246244

Your really not though.

People have been shot by the US government for trying to leave the US without their expressed permission before.

They will also still keep trying to steal from you and enforcing their bullshit on you no matter where in the world you go.

They truly are global tyrants.


 No.246430

>>246318

>Being that constitutionally we're a secular nation. His religious beliefs should not belong in business transactions.

He isn't a state run bakery dumbass. That isn't how it works.


 No.246441

>>246180

>state laws are subordinate to federal laws and regulations.

Only when the federal laws and regulations are constitutional, which wipes out about 90% of them.


 No.246448

>>246349

>My point is that a minimal set of regulations don't include that one

Do you see the problem here? "Minimal" is too vague. Go ahead and define "minimal" first, and then we can discuss it further.

I'm against that kind of discrimination because it's superficial and mostly based on appearances; whereas the Baker case is based on principle.

>"the ability to discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality" doesn't cause a dysfunctional society therefore isn't prohibited by minimal regulations

I think it would end up causing a much more dysfunctional society. Segregation of every kind would make a pretty strong comeback, and obviously that didn't work out so well the first time around. You're being extremely naive.

>if that isn't what you intended, please correct me

I meant that HE wasn't necessarily implying he wasn't compelled by law. Anyway, I'm not gonna bicker about this anymore. It's trivial.


 No.246486

>>245512

Sadly these fags only know hate

>>245748

this


 No.246541

>>246416

Better to die a free man killed for being uncompromising on your principles than to live a slave and a cuck.


 No.246570

>>246448

>define minimal regulations

One of the least sets of regulations which is required to maintain a "functional society".

I haven't specified an ordering of sets of regulations, because we don't need a full definition. We need only agree that adding the regulation "can't discrim. based on …" to a given set of regulations makes it less minimal, unless it already contained a regulation which implied the added regulation.

>I'm against that kind of discrimination because it's superficial and mostly based on appearances

I'm against avoiding black cats because it's superficial and mostly based on appearances. If I encounter it, I'll work to remove it from society in proportion to the harm it causes. This means I'll spend a few minutes on someone who avoids black cats, and a few hours on someone who avoids black people.*

I do not believe that preventing people being idiots in this way is required to maintain a functional society. I am not willing to impose things on people against their will, unless it is required to maintain a functional society. Therefore I do not advocate for treating people equally in this limited sense to be enforced upon people against their will, because it is not required to maintain a functional society.

>I think it would end up causing a much more dysfunctional society

If I believed that, then I would agree equal treatment (in this limited sense) should be enforced upon people against their will. If you want me to support laws forcing people to treat one another equally (in this limited sense) then you need only convince me of this point.

>You're being extremely naive.

Probably, I know fuck all about anthropology/sociology. I'm not interested enough to read up on it for it's own sake, and I don't have enough political influence for reading up on it for the sake of settling this question to be worth the effort.

*IRL, not on the internet, I can't take responsibility for all that mess, I'll make my own little part of the world a little better first.


 No.246580

>>246541

Currently trying to do my part to starve the beast now.

Tax evasion is hard with literally everything everyone does involving money is taxed in one way or another. Too bad I can't pay for things in person with crypto yet.


 No.246591

>>246570

>>246448

oops, I misread

>I think it would end up causing a much more dysfunctional society

as

>I think it would end up causing a dysfunctional society

I agree it would create a more dysfunctional society than our current one, but don't currently believe it would be create a dysfunctional society.


 No.246599

>>246416

>People have been shot by the US government for trying to leave the US without their expressed permission before.

Maybe if you're a wanted criminal. No one's going to shoot you for going back to Mexico where you belong.


 No.246605

>>246599

I was talking about tax slaves, not Mexicans. Mexicans don't pay net taxes so the government doesn't really give a shit if they leave. They have expressed permission to get the fuck out. But Citizens do not.


 No.246622

File: 0089bd2c0061724⋯.jpg (71.39 KB, 908x539, 908:539, jesus.jpg)


 No.246632

>>245600

>fake christian implores government for help

Actually it was faggots imploring the government for help, to force this guy to work for them.

Tell me anons, if Walmart sued your ass to try to force you to be one of their employees, do you think they'd have a case? This is no different. The man does contract work, he can contract with whoever he wants and decline to contract with whoever he doesn't want to work for. Period. Faggotry doesn't even have to enter into the discussion. It is a simple matter of private citizens choosing who to work for.


 No.246651

>>246622

i've never seen an actual ad hom in the wild, thanks


 No.246666

>>246264

>homosexuality is a parasitic nature that reproduces through molestation

this also explains where jews originate


 No.246668

>>246605

So you owe back taxes to the Fed? Or you're a fugitive?


 No.246684

>>246264

>therefore 1,6% of the population is responsible for roughly 25% of child molestation

You're incorrect on this line, many paedophiles are prison gay.


 No.246694

>>245534

Jewish shills dont even hide themselves


 No.246697

>>246684

Prior to prison they were willfully gay.


 No.246701

>>246570

>one of the least sets of regulations which is required to maintain a "functional society

That is still too vague. The fact is, you don't know that society wouldn't become more dysfunctional if we abolished all anti-discrimination laws.

>I'm against avoiding black cats because it's superficial and mostly based on appearances. If I encounter it, I'll work to remove it from society in proportion to the harm it causes. This means I'll spend a few minutes on someone who avoids black cats, and a few hours on someone who avoids black people

… ?

>I do not believe that preventing people being idiots in this way is required to maintain a functional society

There's evidence to the contrary. See: the civil rights movement; and we have quite a bit more blacks than we did back then. I think we'd also see liberal companies and Universities descriminating against white men more than they already do. Then you'd have conservative companies not hiring women and minorities as retaliation. We'd end up with constant protests. Ultimately, society would become even more fractured than it already is.

>>246591

>I agree it would create a more dysfunctional society than our current one, but don't currently believe it would be create a dysfunctional society

Dysfunctional is relative, though.


 No.246709

>>246701

*discriminating


 No.246710

>>246701

>you don't know that society wouldn't become more dysfunctional if we abolished all anti-discrimination laws

>prove a negative

Brainlet retard detected.


 No.246713

>>246694

Been 3 very obvious shills hanging out here. I don't think they're even /leftypol/, they seem too green for that. If you post a wrongthink image they'll make sure to post a reply either calling you a name or just acting disgusted. If it was /leftypol/ they'd just spam the thread in response.


 No.246715

>>246710

The burden of proof goes both ways here. I don't know if it would, and he doesn't know if it wouldn't.


 No.246718

>>245505

>Utah

<Christian

Mormons are pagan cultists, not Christians. They believe they become Gods in their own right by following their religion. It's pantheism/Buddhist tier shit.


 No.246721

>>246715

>prove a negative

Holy shit I can't tell if you're just retarded or a legitimate marxist who blew in from /leftypol/


 No.246737

>>246721

I'm not telling him to prove it, you fucking moron. I was stating the FACT that he cannot be sure if society would become more dysfunctional. Therefore, his criteria for what constitutes "minimal" regulations is flawed.

>I can't tell if you're retarded

I can certainly tell that you're projecting.


 No.246743

>>246721

The only way to prove any hypothesis is by experiment.


 No.246761

>>246743

Incorrect, a priori reasoning may also be used.


 No.246778

>>246761

In this particular case, a priori reasoning would not be sufficient.

Not anon btw


 No.246786

>>246668

Funny thing is, according to their records they actually "owe" me a refund because of my low taxable income and large amounts of deductions I qualify for.

But that is mainly due to me pulling crazy financial tricks and using every loop hole I could to prove a point to someone a few years back.

If my situation was a bit different I would do everything under the table and wouldn't pay any taxes at all ever. There are even a lot of ways around sales and property tax.


 No.246861

>>246701

>That is still too vague.

see

>we don't need a full definition. We need only agree that adding the regulation "can't discrim. based on …" to a given set of regulations makes it less minimal, unless it already contained a regulation which implied the added regulation.

>… ?

You seemed to imply that being against something and wishing it eliminated from society is reason to be in favour of outlawing it.

>the civil rights movement

(i'm not familiar with US history, I assume you're talking about equality before the law/right to vote)

Racist laws are not the same as a lack of antiracist laws.

>we have quite a bit more blacks than we did back then

This is strong reason to expect far less trouble. Most people have met blacks and they know they're just normal people.

>I think we'd also see liberal companies and Universities descriminating against white men more than they already do.

Sucks for white men, it's the unis'/companies' business who they accept. IRL I expect the market would limit the extent of this, though the big uni's will always be slaves to the social mores of their funders.

>Then you'd have conservative companies not hiring women and minorities as retaliation.

Sure, that'd happen to, probably more due to prejudice rather than retaliation, but it'd happen. Outright refusing everyone of a certain group as corporate policy would be rare as fuck though, the majority of affirmative action folk would never countenance that, probably you'd just get the occasional dickhead hiring manager. If he's so seriously violating policy and sabotaging the business though, then he should be sued by his employer.

>We'd end up with constant protests.

Boycotts and protests are what should happen. Normal sensible people far outnumber the fringe nutters and could easily exert enough pressure to stop large companies doing so (also: shareholders generally don't care about politics or prejudice, they care about money, and "we don't hire blacks" is astoundingly bad PR).

Consider a company which didn't discriminate and so didn't have to deal with constant protests and alienating customers. They're gonna have a significant advantage. Eventually such companies will come to dominate barring market failure.

>society would become more fractured

The vast majority of people aren't consciously prejudiced. It would be more fractured, but not much, and as racial diversity increases that will be further reduced as people gain first hand experience.

>[define dysfunctional]

It doesn't matter how it's defined, until we disagree about whether a society is functional. We'd need to agree what society would look like without anti-racism laws before we can consider whether it's functional.


 No.246869

>>246710

trad. rationalist detected, consider Bayes' theorem.


 No.246873

>>245505

Just take the order and literally shit in the cake. Fucking retards.


 No.246881

>>245534

"Suffer no abomination to live among you" those sodomites should be grateful we're not out murdering them like a real Christian should.


 No.246917

>>246715

>I was stating the FACT that he cannot be sure

True, only priors of 0 or 1 lead to certainty when updating with Bayes' theorem, and there's no good reason for assigning any hypothesis such a prior.

>his criteria for what constitutes "minimal" regulations is flawed

I don't see how that follows from literally-100%-certain knowledge being impossible, please explain.


 No.246936

>>246881

You could literally make any conclusion you want from mistranslated kabbalistic manuscripts.


 No.246974

>>246861

>to a given set of regulations makes it less minimal, unless it already contained a regulation which implied the added regulation

Lol that's utterly superficial.

>you seemed to imply that being against something and wishing it eliminated from society is reason to be in favour of outlawing it.

Generally speaking, yes, that's what I was implying. However, I still have no idea what the fuck you're on about.

>Racist laws are not the same as a lack of antiracist laws

Correct. I didn't imply otherwise. I'm saying, I believe that a lack of anti-racist laws would lead to an increase in legitimate racism.

>this is strong reason to expect far less trouble. Most people have met blacks and they know they're just normal people

LOL

Yeah, you definitely aren't American. The fact that most people HAVE met blacks is precisely the problem.

>IRL I expect the market would limit the extent of this, though the big uni's will always be slaves to the social mores of their funders

Things have been getting worse WITH anti-discrimination laws. What makes you think it wouldn't get worse without them?

>outright refusing everyone of a certain group as corporate policy would be rare as fuck though

It doesn't have to be made corporate policy, and it doesn't have to be sweeping. The bottom line is, we'd become more fractured and segregated, and it would lead to more instability.

>Normal sensible people far outnumber the fringe nutters and could easily exert enough pressure to stop large companies doing so

The large companies, sure. What about the millions that aren't public?

Gee, it's almost as if anti-discrimination laws are a good way to make sure we don't have to worry about this shit.

>The vast majority of people aren't consciously prejudiced

Whether it's conscious or not is irrelevant.

>it would be more fractured, but not much, and as racial diversity increases that will be further reduced as people gain first hand experience

There's good reason to believe that first-hand experience would make things even worse. The more diverse we become, the more differences there are going to be between people – and I think history has shown that most people aren't very tolerant of differences.

This reminds me of the Gun Rights argument that more guns = less violence. It's pretty naive and ignorant.

>it doesn't matter how it's defined, until we disagree about whether a society is functional

We can't agree on whether society is currently in a functional state because it's relative.

>we'd need to agree what society would look like without anti-racism laws before we can consider whether it's functional

… right


 No.247007

>>245534

Loving your neighbor =/= participating in morally objectionable conduct because he asked you to.


 No.247010

>>246917

>True, only priors of 0 or 1 lead to certainty when updating with Bayes' theorem, and there's no good reason for assigning any hypothesis such a prior

I know it's true. Stop trying so hard to impress, you pretentious twat.

>I don't see how that follows from literally-100%-certain knowledge being impossible, please explain

Society is a very complex thing, wouldn't you say? It's not even close to 100% certainty.

You should just drop the "minimal regulations" rhetoric. It's unnecessary. Either you think a law is justified or you don't.


 No.247251

>>246974

>>247010

>>246974

>Lol that's utterly superficial.

Increasing the set of prohibited/mandated actions makes the regulations less minimal. I agree this is trivial, and I don't see why you forced me to specify it for an argument which required nothing more.

>[wanting something gone from society is reason to outlaw it is] what I was implying [so what's you're point?]

That wanting something gone from society is necessary but not sufficient reason to outlaw it.

>I believe that a lack of anti-racist laws would lead to an increase in legitimate racism.

I agree, I just don't think it'd be damaging enough to be worth expanding the set of prohibited actions. I am loath to add anything to the "I will force you to (not) do this against your will" list.

>The fact that most people HAVE met blacks is precisely the problem.

The blacks over here are just fine, sounds like a USA problem, which makes it cultural not racial (assuming you're right, and the USA's blacks are a problem).

Do you support banning discrimination based on culture? If not, then the vast majority of racists would just refuse to service people of the culture you find objectionable in some of the USA's blacks, and nothing would change via your anti-racism laws. Blacks from unobjectionable cultures would have to be served, but blacks of the culture you find problematic wouldn't.

>What makes you think it wouldn't get worse without them?

I don't think those laws have much impact at all on people's personal beliefs, just their actions in hiring/serving customers/etc.

>more fractured and segregated, and it would lead to more instability

I've never opposed this point, it's obviously true. You need to convince me the damage is great enough to start compelling people to (not) do things against their will.

>What about the millions that aren't public?

The exact same tactic. They still want money. They still can be protested. They still can be boycotted.

>Whether it's conscious or not is irrelevant.

It is, because if it's unconscious the law will be utterly ignored by accident. Trying to follow a law can only impact conscious bias.

The exception to this is companies trying to avoid liability by being more thourough to avoid unconsciouss bias, but given how hard it would be to prove, any laws sufficiently strong to have a large impact would probably be draconic,

>The more diverse we become, the more differences there are going to be between people

Culturally diverse, yes. Racially diverse, no. There will of course be minor differences, but nothing significant.

>most people aren't very tolerant of differences

I think history shows that people aren't very tolerant of the outgroup regardless of similarity. The lack of travel caused a lack of diversity caused the outgroup to often be different. I think that's mostly incidental, though it is a useful propaganda tool.

>gun rights argument

I'm not familiar with it.

>We can't agree on whether society is currently in a functional state because it's relative.

I wasn't aware you thought it was currently dysfunctional, I thought we both believed it to be functional.

>… right

The referent of "it" is "society without anti-racism laws" not "society as it is".

>It's not even close to 100% certainty.

I never claimed it was. In uncertainty I err away from forcing people to (not) do things against their will.

>Either you think a law is justified or you don't

How I decide that is by considering if adding it to the current laws results in one of the "minimal regulations". It is the standard by which I judge justification. Feel free to phrase it as "society wouldn't function without this law", but that's the same thing in different words.

I've got to sleep, it's 6:30am, but I'll respond tomorrow.


 No.247374

>>245512

Are you sure they live right next to him?


 No.247472

>>247251

>I agree this is trivial, and I don't see why you forced me to specify it for an argument which required nothing more

Because of the following…

>you: because a society with minimal regulation is preferable, so that is the society we should implement

This was your response to why there isn't a moral difference between between not serving someone simply because of their sexuality and not providing a service based on principle. It doesn't make any sense. Using "minimal regulation" as a justification for a law (or lack thereof) is insufficient.

>that wanting something gone from society is necessary but not sufficient reason to outlaw it

Not in and of itself. However, I've provided reasons to support my position.

>I agree, I just don't think it'd be damaging enough to be worth expanding the set of prohibited actions

These things are already in place. You wouldn't be adding anything. I don't see why you think these laws are causing society to be more dysfunctional.

>The blacks over here are just fine, sounds like a USA problem, which makes it cultural not racial

I doubt that. I'd love to see the crime reports in your country.

>Do you support banning discrimination based on culture?

Depends. Despite the fact that I think the Baker is fucking moron, I support his right to discriminate for those reasons.

>if not, then the vast majority of racists would just refuse to service people of the culture you find objectionable in some of the USA's blacks, and nothing would change via your anti-racism laws.

I don't think you understand racism. The "culture" of the blacks wouldn't matter, because most racism against blacks has nothing to do with culture – it has to do with the fact that they end up ruining every community they ever infest. Just take a look at the crime rates.

>I don't think those laws have much impact at all on people's personal beliefs, just their actions in hiring/serving customers/etc

Right, and that's the main problem. I couldn't care less what people BELIEVE; I care about what they DO.

>You need to convince me the damage is great enough to start compelling people to (not) do things against their will

Simply because I believe things would be relatively better with the laws. Even if you think things would be .0001% better, then that should be enough justification for you.

>The exact same tactic. They still want money. They still can be protested. They still can be boycotted

Sure, but there are communities which are dominated by certain groups. In those communities, the minorities would be more at-risk. And frankly, we don't need any more controversy or protesting. We have enough to worry about as it is.

>It is, because if it's unconscious the law will be utterly ignored by accident

Ok, fair enough. However, I believe those unconscious prejudicial tendencies would become more conscious, and this would result in more racist behavior.

>Culturally diverse, yes. Racially diverse, no. There will of course be minor differences, but nothing significant

You have to ignore a spectacular amount of tangible evidence to believe this. Look at the rise of the Far Right all over the Western world as we become more diverse.

>I think history shows that people aren't very tolerant of the outgroup regardless of similarity

You're right, skin color, religion, values (or lack thereof), disproportionate crime stats… that doesn't have much to do with it. Fuck off.

>I wasn't aware you thought it was currently dysfunctional

You missed the point. We can't agree on whether or not society is in an absolute state of functionality. We can only guess whether it would be more or less functional based on certain criteria.

>the referent of "it" is "society without anti-racism laws" not "society as it is"

It's true either way.

>I never claimed it was. In uncertainty I err away from forcing people to (not) do things against their will.

Obviously. My point was that the desire for "minimal regulations" is a superficial criteria to determine whether or not a law is valid.

>Feel free to phrase it as "society wouldn't function without this law", but that's the same thing in different words

Society could "function" according to Hitler's vision. Degrees are important.


 No.247506

>>246441

>Only when the federal laws and regulations are constitutional, which wipes out about 90% of them.

If a federal law is ever found to be unconstitutional it is annulled by the Supreme Court.


 No.247524

File: 58f422a7e9569e7⋯.jpeg (58.36 KB, 469x595, 67:85, 4E1BB338-8D38-4FD8-A90F-9….jpeg)

File: fb0336f5cbadaf2⋯.jpeg (50.94 KB, 500x567, 500:567, A34DADF7-9198-4329-A84D-B….jpeg)

If republicans want to use their authority to force new justices of their liking, and use courts to harass and create laws about abortion, sue the fuck away.

What a retard this guy is but he is getting money from dumb fuck religious types so good for him. Its his hussle.


 No.247539

>>245919

>plenty of us hate the sjws who claim pretend to repress us

You dislike like them only insofar as they are obnoxious and unpleasant; they're "bad optics" as it were. Ideologically, the separation between them and you is largely superficial, except for perhaps the methodological means by which they intend to meet their desired ends which you both seek in common.


 No.247540

File: d60cca10dc4fa2a⋯.png (76.23 KB, 500x459, 500:459, bake the fucking cake.png)


 No.247543

>>247539

*represent us

Phoneposting is hard.


 No.247587

File: ea29196768ffbd3⋯.jpeg (76.95 KB, 564x579, 188:193, 070B1B7F-B40F-40BC-9DF4-3….jpeg)

>>247539

They revel in victimhood exactly like right wing retards. Two sides of the same coin with healthy normal people in the middle.


 No.247593

>>247543

You get used to it, and typos are common no matter what format you choice because proof reading in the tiny box is a pain and who does that for /b2/ shitpost.


 No.247598

>>247587

Wow, such a massive disconnect from reality. They could make a psych PHD thesis on you. Seriously, you might even get paid.


 No.247606

File: 2e4060adae10ff5⋯.jpg (62.21 KB, 500x543, 500:543, 00000000084u37r7r747473.jpg)

>>247587

And by "victimhood" you mean they have some substantive objection to how society is organized which they seek to remedy, instead of being a lethargic, docile, complacent beast of the field?


 No.247623

>>245505

Does America not have the legal principle of res iudicata? The more i learn about the US, the more retarded it seems.


 No.247626

>>247587

>they revel in their victimhood

>feminists

Obviously

>niggers

Definitely the ""socially conscious"" ones

>SJWs

Absolutely

>stormfags

Just as bad as SJWs

>gays

Most of them just wanna be able to get married and fuck members of the same sex


 No.247627

>>247606

That, and they're whining little faggots.


 No.247637

>>247623

Doesn't apply to white Christians.


 No.247639

>>247623

There's a double jeopardy clause but it only protects against same charge with same facts.


 No.247668

>>247626

Lmfao fags are whiniest bunch of cry-bullies of the bunch. Take off your pink-tinted studio glasses and see reality as it is you boy molesting cupcake.


 No.247687

File: acf8d0adb678a76⋯.png (3.51 MB, 750x1334, 375:667, militant baker.png)

why are bakers always such assholes?


 No.247690

>>247639

Alright. Looks like this is a separate case. Last time he refused to bake for homos for religious reasons, this time it’s for a trap. Still, given that the american system is based on precedents and he won the case at the supreme court, I don’t see why this doesn’t immediately get swiped off the table


 No.247696

>>247668

I wouldn't say they're the biggest whiners (trannies have taken the first spot recently), but they're certainly the most obnoxious.

>>247690

>this time it’s for a trap

This would all be fixed if we could all come together and admit that traps are gay.

Still, as others have said, he'll keep getting sued until one of them wins as an example to others that want to take a stand against the leftist agenda.


 No.247707

>>247668

>lmfao fags are whiniest bunch of cry-bullies of the bunch

Perhaps because they have legitimate things to whine about, dumbass.

For example, being banned from the military (until fairly recently) and not being able to get married are legit reasons to complain. That's not the same as, say, /pol/tards whining about how Jews are disproportionately represented in positions of power.


 No.247712

>>247696

But trannies at least have some masculine impulse to get angry and start making threats of violence against you if you wind them up enough, gays are just passive aggressive about it and use covert social means or some other authority to get back at you.


 No.247717

>>247707

Good, keep your cumqueefs to yourself or gtfo. Also, where do live? In my country none of that shit is true, and that seems to be the case in all of the western countries I've ever bothered to look up.

Personally, I'm more interested in the right of private peoples to not have to associate with you in any way, shape, or form tbh.


 No.247719

>>247707

>being banned from the military

They're mentally ill and a petri dish for every STD known to man. Do you want to catch incurable gonorrhea or AIDS when private Flamingo's intestines get blasted in your face? Faggots shouldn't be allowed in the military for the same reason women, trannies and minorities shouldn't be.

>not being able to get married

Fags are pathologically promiscuous and have no ability to stay loyal to their partner of choice. Also, marriage is a social institution meant to facilitate the creation of families and the raising of children, not a farce to allow two mentally ill individuals to play house and pretend they're normal.

>Jews are disproportionately represented in positions of power

Are you saying they aren't?

>>247712

I'd argue it's not a masculine impulse, but the kind of hysterics women throw around when they're pregnant or have their period. Not to imply they have female traits, just that hormonal imbalances make people and human-like creatures act erratically.


 No.247721

>>247707

>muh Jews

The Jews are more of curiosity to me, tbh. I'm more interested in myself and my progeny being demographically and culturally dispossessed in my own homeland through replacement migration.


 No.247724

>>247717

>Also, where do live?

Take a wild guess. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

>Personally, I'm more interested in the right of private peoples to not have to associate with you in any way, shape, or form tbh

Many people agree with you. I'll add that to the list of legitimate reasons to complain.

Btw, I'm not gay.

>>247719

>they're mentally ill and a petri dish for every STD known to man

1. The "mental illness" would have to prevent someone from sufficiently performing their job.

2. Gay or straight, everyone needs to pass physicals.

>do you want to catch incurable gonorrhea or AIDS when private Flamingo's intestines get blasted in your face?

I suppose you think blacks shouldn't be allowed to serve either? Anyway, name one single case of someone catching an STD because of a gay man getting shot or bombed… one solitary case.

>fags are pathologically promiscuous and have no ability to stay loyal to their partner of choice

Not your business

>also, marriage is a social institution meant to facilitate the creation of families and the raising of children, not a farce to allow two mentally ill individuals to play house and pretend they're normal.

Appeal to Tradition is a pretty weak fallacy.

>are you saying they aren't?

They certainly are. Keep whining while they keep winning, fag.


 No.247732

>>247712

The fag is that annoying kid who picked a fight with you only to run gleefully to his mom to taddle on you the moment you so much as pushed him to the ground. The tranny is the one who ran home to grab a knife.


 No.247734

File: 0530751040c8a78⋯.jpg (53.73 KB, 486x750, 81:125, ididthedishesalreadyfuckof….jpg)

>>246353

INCORRECT XENOS SCUM

SINGULARITY IS FOR HERETEK FAGGOTS


 No.247749

File: d9acf6b302eada0⋯.jpg (167.33 KB, 900x600, 3:2, 000000037447.jpg)

>>247724

>I'm like, totally straight, swilly boy

Anon, if you ever feel like you need someone to talk to, we're always here for you,


 No.247765

File: 94186254095b118⋯.gif (1.65 MB, 336x650, 168:325, 1485830390526.gif)

>>247749

In case you hadn't noticed, we're totally anonymous. If I got railed by 500 cocks a day, I wouldn't be the least bit reluctant to admit it.

I do fap to tranny porn on occasion, but the tranny has to look pretty damn feminine. Have fun with the gif, buddy!


 No.247769

>>247724

Female bitch hormones + male-brained aggressive fight instincts is truly a spectacle to behold, I've gotten more death threats from trannies than vegans.


 No.247774

>>247769

Where can one find a source of trannies to bully?


 No.247781

>>247769

I'm actually on the fence regarding trannies being able to serve in the military. Statistics show that transsexuals are significantly more mentally unstable than the rest of the population.


 No.247783

File: 02a06007aa3fee1⋯.png (2.51 KB, 97x125, 97:125, interdasting.png)

>>245822

>pride parades happen in private


 No.247784

>>247781

>people that willingly mutilate their genitalia are mentally ill

Did you need to get your doctorate in psychological quackery to come to this shocking conclusion?


 No.247787

It's okay because they are always open to counter-sue afterwards for damage to reputation and costs etc.


 No.247788

>>247765

What the fuck she has a bigger dick than me.


 No.247790

>>247765

I want to slap that cock.


 No.247791

>>247687

Having food to eat is a capitalist trait and capitalists are assholes.


 No.247797

>>247788

>>247788

It always bothers me how intersex people (not necessarily trannies) always have massive fat cocks that are superior to my own.


 No.247805

Xhamster embed. Click thumbnail to play.
 

>>247784

My point is, there are varying degrees of mental illness. And unless the mental illness would prevent someone from doing their job, it shouldn't be relevant.

>>247788

Yeah, some of the hottest trannies have monster cocks lol (link very related)


 No.247815

>>247805

I wonder how many gay-bashers are gonna furiously fap to this video


 No.247825

>>247805

>allowing certifiably mentally ill people that self-mutilate anywhere near heavy equipment of live weapons

And the West wonders why they can't defeat a bunch of desert goatfuckers.


 No.247829

>>247805

Metal illnesses are a social construct, if someone is gay in Iran it will hinder their ability to do their job.


 No.247838

>>247805

>unless the the mental illness would someone prevent someone from doing their job, it shouldn't be relevant

Operational capabilities has little to due with it, so much as they demonstrate a higher propensity to lose their shit in compromising circumstances. You could be totally stable 99% of the time, but if we can make a reasonable prediction that you're going to be shooting up a school that 0.001% of the time, you can't own a firearm.


 No.247840

>>247825

>and the West wonders why they can't defeat a bunch of desert goatfuckers

Yeah, it's not because it's impossible to win a war on terrorism and that we've half-assed every "war" since WWII. It's definitely because we allow trannies in the military.


 No.247845

>>247815

Interex =/= tranny. They exist in an entirely separate category of sex and therefore fapping to them is not gay because they are removed from the gay/straight dichotomy.


 No.247846

ah lawfare, the practices of a noble people.


 No.247849

>>247840

We only let trannies into the military because scoring political browny points and social signaling is more important to us than operational effectiveness, which is the same reason we "half-ass" wars in the first place.


 No.247851

>>247840

>it's impossible to win a war on terrorism

It's perfectly possible to quash a native insurgency, just ask the French in Algeria. Then again, as you said, to do that it takes the proper attitude, instead of half-assing it and feeling sorry for the subhumans.

>It's definitely because we allow trannies in the military.

But it is. It's a symptom of the same sickness that allows niggers and women in the military, or non-whites to infest white lands. It's soul rot that makes whites doubt themselves and their goals.

Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan would have been such a big challenge if the US did what was logical and just doused the place in nerve gas and carpet-bombed more dug in spots? A desert called peace and all.


 No.247854

>>247838

>operational capabilities has little to due with it, so much as they demonstrate a higher propensity to lose their shit in compromising circumstances

If they can pass the same psych evaluation as everyone else, one could argue that the stats don't matter. My problem with trannies serving in the military is that they are significantly more prone to mental instability, therefore, perhaps we should just nip it in the bud and ban them altogether.

>you could be totally stable 99% of the time, but if we can make a reasonable prediction that you're going to be shooting up a school that 0.001% of the time, you can't own a firearm

Wow, so you're pretty hardcore when it comes to gun regulations?


 No.247856

>>247845

Yeah, I was joking, autist. I'm straight and I've cum buckets to that video


 No.247857

>>247854

The ultimate goal of every tranny is to cut off his dick. They're all mentally unstable. I don't know why the fact they're all batshit crazy is even up for debate.


 No.247859

>>247851

Not even worth responding to this on a point by point basis.


 No.247861

>>247857

>the ultimate goal of every tranny is to cut off his dick

But that's not true


 No.247866

>>247859

>I have no rebuttal so I'll whine like a bitch

Faggots gonna faggot.

>>247861

Okay, let me rephrase that.

The ultimate goal of every tranny is to turn himself into a parody of a woman, and to do that one of the steps is chopping off his genitals.

There, happy?


 No.247870

>>247854

No, I'm not for gun control, but it's a question of priorities and ensuring access to firearms is more important to me than the odd massacre here and there. I don't dispute the reality of what I'm asking for, however.


 No.247874

>>247870

Mass shootings would end very quickly if all the would-be victims were also armed.


 No.247879

>>247874

Thats not true, assault rifles have a long range and a group of people is easier to hit than one person, its going to be even harder for an untrained person getting shot at.


 No.247881

>>247866

>I have no rebuttal so I'll whine like a butch

>"bro, we should have just carpet bombed the fuck out of hose subhumans, bro!"

You're a moron.

>the ultimate goal of every tranny is to turn himself into a parody of a woman, and to do that one of the steps is chopping off his genitals

It is one step, but the majority of them don't end up chopping their dicks off.

>>247874

Yeah, we should just have all the kids carrying around a sidearm in school. That definitely wouldn't backfire.

I swear, the userbase on this site gets dumber by the week.


 No.247885

>>247879

This is low IQ.


 No.247888

>>247881

>>247879

>people shouldn't be armed because it's hard to shoot back

And you leftist cuck actually wonder why you always get rounded up and shot?

>>247885

Brain atrophy precedes the conversion to liberalism.


 No.247889

>>247881

But having gun is one of the only things white people take pride in beside their race, we wouldnt want to deprive them of their pride right?


 No.247898

>>247888

>And you leftist cuck actually wonder why you always get rounded up and shot?

Yeah, all those leftists at the country concert in Vegas. Or those leftists at the Baptist church. And lets not forget about all those leftists at Sandy Hook.


 No.247902

File: e1f6e7e35b1b7c6⋯.jpg (793.88 KB, 2400x1733, 2400:1733, rtx2rhs8.jpg)

>>247889

Gunfags are a particularly insufferable breed.


 No.247905

>>247898

I get you're an imbecile, but please at least try to read what is written.

If leftists weren't constantly whining about "muh guns are evil and kill innocent niggers" there wouldn't be a stigma associated with owning and carrying a firearm, thus making the likelihood of a successful mass shooting less likely.

But I guess you'd rather none of us carry guns because leftist idiocy.


 No.247906

>>245716

this meme was fucking old when it started.

kill yourself


 No.247907

>>247888

Its the governments job to protects its people, if civilian posses guns the goverment needs to be more authoritarian to keep its civilians save, (northern and western)Europe is way more Democratic and has more freedom, look it up.


 No.247908

>>247902

I open carry, you sound like a pussy or a nigger


 No.247909

>>245823

don't forget your aids medication disgusting faggot


 No.247914

>>247909

Africans get chased away from this racist board real quick, sadly


 No.247915


 No.247916

>>247907

>Its the governments job to protects its people

>average police response time in the US is 11 minutes

Better hope that home invader is a slow one.

>if civilian posses guns the goverment needs to be more authoritarian to keep its civilians save

>government needs to crack down on people exercising their constitutional rights

Oy vey.

>Europe is way more Democratic and has more freedom

I'm dying here.


 No.247921

>>246011

You utterly fucking braindead mutt.


 No.247922

>>247914

Just go to a nearby ghetto, Jamal and Tyrone are more than ready to rape your faggot ass.


 No.247925

>>247905

>please read what is written

Please be more careful about how you phrase things.

>If leftists weren't constantly whining about "muh guns are evil and kill innocent niggers" there wouldn't be a stigma associated with owning and carrying a firearm

More guns =/= less violence. I know you like to imagine a scenario in which heroes always defeat the evil-doers, but that's not what would end up happening, Rambo.

>but I guess you'd rather none of us carry guns because leftist idiocy

I'm not completely against the 2nd amendment. I just think we need to expand background checks and do a better job at making sure dangerous people don't get firearms.

>>247908

Whoa, you must be a really tuff dude, bro. So like… if I went up to you with a little .22 and shot you in the face, what would you do, brah?


 No.247926

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>247898

Those are “fake”, you insufferably dense fuckwad. You might summon up the power of imaginary martyrs to say otherwise - taking “righteous” indignation against he who would say otherwise - yet really you’re just another in a long line of religious zealots, faithfully executing the narrative of some pyramidal elite too intelligent to ever let you so much as near their bloodline. Take your weak sauce CNN talking points to reddit, faggot.


 No.247929

>>247926

>those are fake

Your brain is fake tbh


 No.247932

>>247845

Technically they are no longer classified as human if they can't be categorised as male or female. Similar to downies, they become a subspecies of mutant that should be incinerated as biological waste.


 No.247934

>>247857

The only ones debating it are mentally ill freak trannies. You can't expect something like that to have a rational opinion, when all it wants to do is chop off its own dick and abuse children.


 No.247936

>>247925

>More guns =/= less violence

An armed society is a polite society. Would it surprise you to know that virtually all gun crimes in the US are committed by spics and niggers using illegal firearms? Of course it would, you'r a dumbfuck leftist, facts and your worldview go together like oil and water.

All you do by outlawing gun ownership is make the life of criminals easier.

>and do a better job at making sure dangerous people don't get firearms.

Deport niggers and spics then. You'll see a sharp decrease in gun violence, and violence in general. But we all known you'll never acknowledge this fact.


 No.247939

File: c21279e66e420d9⋯.jpg (269.74 KB, 789x1166, 789:1166, edfaa223d4bdba1b7bcc21781d….jpg)

Can anons just start a go fund ,e for this guy? Seriously these cucks would get so asshurt and boomers would eat it up like crazy if people started just tgrowing cash at this guy because fuck faggots.


 No.247942


 No.247945

>>247939

Dispite the terrible typing that's actually a good idea.


 No.247948

>>247939

As lulzy as that would be go fund me would take it down probably, if there is some other crowdfunding site that isn't cucked it could work. Making him a richfag for not giving in to faggots would make alot of commieshits assmangled beyond repair.


 No.247953

>>247936

>an armed society is a polite society

Compare crime rates around the world and you'll see that the evidence is not in your favor. We con only speculate about whether more people being armed would lead to less violence, so we're going to have to agree to disaree.

>Would it surprise you to know that virtually all gun crimes in the US are committed by spics and niggers using illegal firearms?

>virtually all

It would surprise me because it's not true.

>all you do by outlawing gun ownership is make the life of criminals easier

I understand that you're mad and all, but try and take a deep breath and read what I post before you respond in a huff. I said I'm not completely anti-guns.

>Deport niggers and spics then. You'll see a sharp decrease in gun violence, and violence in general. But we all known you'll never acknowledge this fact.

Of course it's a fact. But obviously deporting them is out of the question, child.


 No.247975

File: 1884241be18aaf0⋯.png (328.05 KB, 826x476, 59:34, ClipboardImage.png)

>>247953

>We con only speculate about whether more people being armed would lead to less violence

The issue isn't people, but race.

>It would surprise me because it's not true.

Blacks commit disproportionately more of all crimes. 50% of all homicides are committed by blacks (despite making up 12% of the population), and in 90% of cases the murderer is a fellow nigger.

The US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a nigger (and spic) problem.

>I said I'm not completely anti-guns.

Yet you think more background checks are going to make a difference when most gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms. Pure leftist genius at work. Gotta make those soy brain cells work extra hard.

>But obviously deporting them is out of the question, child.

Yeah, Western countries aren't allowed to fix their own problems, we gotta wallow in nigger filth because it would hurt their feelings to ship them back.


 No.248004

>>247975

>The issue isn't people, but race

>the issue isn't people, but certain kinds of people

You're not too bright, are you? You might wanna take another look at the stats you just posted.

>Blacks commit disproportionately more of all crimes

Obviously

>the US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a nigger (and spic) problem

I'll agree with half of this. The US has both.

>Yet you think more background checks are going to make a difference when most gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms

1. I'd like to see the stats that back this up.

2. A lot of crimes are committed with registered weapons. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that more effective background checks would reduce gun crimes that are committed with registered weapons.

>Yeah, Western countries aren't allowed to fix their own problems

It's not even a possibility, so there's no point in bickering about it, you unbelievably stupid fuck.


 No.248062

File: 9236ced8fd10830⋯.png (2.77 MB, 1008x720, 7:5, 9236ced8fd108305ae31d63ac0….png)

>>245534

Oh fuck off, you don't even love yourself.


 No.248203

>>247921

Sounds like someone is mad your women look like they been kicked by a ass and act like they were raised by wolves.


 No.250790

>>247472

>I don't see why you think these laws are causing society to be more dysfunctional.

I don't, I think they make society /more/ functional, but that it would still function well enough without them.

>These things are already in place.

I don't care what the laws are, I care what they should be. The current laws minus those laws are more minimal and, I believe, would produce a sufficiently functional society.

>I doubt that. I'd love to see the crime reports in your country.

I'll concede this for the sake of argument, I haven't got strong reason to believe one way or the other.

>Even if you think things would be .0001% better, then that should be enough justification for you.

Your goal seems to be to make society/the world the best it can be. This is not my goal.

My goal is to minimize things being forced on people against their will as much as possible while maintaining a sufficiently functional society. I strive to make society/the world the best it can be within that limitation.

>You have to ignore a spectacular amount of tangible evidence to believe [racial diversity is significant compared to cultural diversity]

If the immigrants acted like the locals in every way (i.e. were culturally identical), I don't think many people would care at all about the racial differences.

>[ingroup/outgroup dichtomy isn't the main driver of historic oppression]

See this summary of an experiment about almost exactly this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QKfPg9xKNeXW/the-robbers-cave-experiment

Cultural diversity almost certainly does cause significant strife; racial diversity will to some extent, but given that I've never (knowingly) met anyone who cared, I doubt it would be much. Conversely I've met plenty of people who cared about culture, and so expect it to.

>We can't agree on whether or not society is in an absolute state of functionality.

We haven't talked about whether society currently functions sufficiently well yet, because up until that post I was assuming you did think it functioned sufficiently well.

>We can only guess whether it would be more or less functional based on certain criteria.

Yes, this is true of everything we ever do.

>It's true either way.

I don't see why we need to agree on whether society without anti-racism laws would function sufficiently well, in order to decide if society with them functions sufficiently well.

>My point was that the desire for "minimal regulations" is a superficial criteria to determine whether or not a law is valid.

It's an entirely reasonable criterion given my goal of minimizing things people are forced to (not) do against their will, because that it directly relates to how many things people are forbidden/mandated to do regardless of their will.

>Society could "function" according to Hitler's vision.

Yes, but it would not have a /minimal/ set of regulations. I require the least set of regulations which produces a functional society. Nazi Germany's laws may produce a functional society (not claiming they would, not claiming they wouldn't) but it certainly isn't minimal, and so I consider it unacceptable.

The degree to which society functions does matter, but my position is that forcing people to (not) do things against their will is only legitimate as a means to achieve this insofar as required to pass a threshold, and above that threshold is no longer legitimate. This threshold is what I've been calling "sufficiently functional". I haven't defined it, because we haven't yet disagreed about whether a given society meets it.

>>247539

>Ideologically, the separation between them and you is largely superficial

Never met an SJW who wanted a night-watchman state.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55trap / b2 / dempart / f / polru / truebrit / veganism / webcams ]