Find any post where I directly said I discrimate against people due to sexual preference. You will find many that says I have many gay friends.
Check mate

You lost

Mechanic Help Needed
 

Hey Duck, my buddies are trying to leave town for their honeymoon and need someone to fix their Prius so they can head to Napa Valley and make sweet passionate gay love.
Can you help them with their Prius?

Ok I'm done no more gay ****; let's bury this thread.

To be honest I don't have much experience working on hybrids. Give me a schematic and time and it's fixed. If on a tight schedule I would recommend leaving the car at the dealership and taking a rental or the bus to the airport.
I do hope they enjoy the honeymoon.
Napa Valley isn't all it's cracked uo to be imo. The wine is ok at best.

You assume I'm against gay marriage. Please show me where I ever said that. If you can then I am man enough to say I got my azz whooped by you. Find it. Hell I'll even start a thread saying you're right.

You bring up the issue of me going to court and this is your rebutal to my arguement. Please tell me you aren't a defense attorney.

You said you wouldn't have to to work on certain classes of folks you don't like and could easily make up a reason that would skirt the laws on discrimination, I.e. You don't like blue shirts.

"Busy busy busy" "don't like no blue shirts in my place, you're here because I let you".

It's pretty easy to gather that from your posts.

Carry on

Just wondering if ANYBODY has actually had their opinion or mind changed since reading this 9 page thread??

And you are willing to go to court with that?Good luck. Sorry you wasted your $. Divient little phucker I am. I'm guessing you're learning that. Slowly as the case may be.

Nope. Just peeps having fun. Yeah I'm one of them. Throw a punch then eat a punch. Goooh fixing to hit me back. We just playing and trash talking. I'll pull him out of a ditch and shake his hand anyday.

For the record I have no doubt he would do the same for me.

Goooh I'm gona hit the sack. I do very much enjoy your civil conversation
.

Lol, I'm just hoping we can keep that awful White House pic at the top of the threads until Christmas.

That's only 6 months away. I think we can do that.lol

Perhaps not, but I'm sure a few have realized they had some wrong facts.

I was recently almost convinced to change my mind on the Confederate flag, because a trusted friend explained that the CSA Constitution demonstrated both white supremacy and insisted that the Confederate states maintain legalized slavery in perpetuity. This would have been unacceptable, since forcing states to accept slavery forever is not "states' rights" but rather centralized control.

However, once I carefully read the CSA Constitution, it was clear that the document permitted CSA states to regulate slavery as they saw fit among their own citizens, and that the CSA Constitution was very similar to the US Constitution, except with the minimal clarifications needed to prevent federal intrusion into issues that the US Constitution had left to the states. The states even retained the power to ban slavery in the entire CSA through the amendment process, and (unlike the US Constitution which guaranteed the overseas slave trade for 18 more years but taxed it) the CSA Constitution immediately banned the overseas slave trade.

Certainly, the Confederate flag can be a symbol of different things to different people, but when men were fighting under it, they were fighting for the principles outlined in the CSA Constitution. To be sure, chattle slavery and white supremacy are horrible evils. But the CSA Constitution does not represent these much more strongly than the original US Constitution.

However, in 1861-1865, the CSA Constitution did articulate a resistance to federal centralized control more clearly than the US Constitution. In 2015 it is easy to see how one can understand it to be a symbol for individual and state liberties that have been gradually eroded by the way the US Constitution is bastardized and misinterpreted by the activist federal courts and those who would prefer to accomplish their social agendas through the fiats of an oligarchy rather than through the republican process originally guaranteed by the Constitution.

How is being forced to involuntarily perform labor in ways that violate one's faith and conscience not an example of the "involuntary servitude" banned under the 13th amendment to the US Constitution?

Just as those who supported slavery were supporting evil, ALL who support citizens being forced to involuntarily violate their faith and conscience with forced labor are supporting a horrible evil.

Actually I learned a great deal from this thread last night. Mainly that if you stay up late debating with Goooh you wake up in your chair at 2:30am. YOUR CHAIR ON THE BACK PATIO.

But the bible says


"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Would parents encouraging their children to obey their teachers at school necessarily imply that the parents support forced, compulsory schooling?

Is it possible to recognize that instructions that represent wisdom and righteousness in a flawed situation do not necessary represent support for the flawed system?

And while many parents would generally instruct their children to obey their teachers, I think most would also instruct their children not to take that obedience into areas that would offend faith or conscience.

Having authority over another, whether as a teacher, parent, coach, employer, pastor, or agent of the government does not make it right to exercise one's power through the forced violation of their faith and/or conscience.

The point is the bible can be taken many ways, and the basis of the disdain for same sex marriage is biblical.

Portions of the bible are conveniently ignored while others are lifted high, and interpretations are infinite anyhow.

Is it time for a digital "newest testament"?

The point of the 1st amendment is to allow individual citizens to exercise their faith and conscience without the burden to prove that it is reasonable or right.

The point of the 13th amendment is an absolute ban on involuntary servitude within the US.

I notice you avoided the question about how forcing citizens to violate their faith and conscience in performing labor in support of homosexual weddings is not involuntary servitude.

The arguments I have heard focus on whether the forced servitude is justified or reasonable, since it is clearly involuntary.