Police knocked on the door to serve a warrant for the teen’s father. The teen answered the door holding a wii controller because he was about to watch a movie. Police immediately shot him in the chest and killed him.
Shit is getting ridiculous.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/attorney-teen-shot-killed-by-police-was-holding-wii-video-game-controller/
Police knocked on the door to serve a warrant for the teen’s father. The teen answered the door holding a wii controller because he was about to watch a movie. Police immediately shot him in the chest and killed him.
Shit is getting ridiculous. [/quote]
Absolutely tragic.
There is no excuse for this type of behavior. The officer that pulled the trigger should face (and get) the death penalty.
Girl Scout sells cookies outside of pot shop…
You don?t need a MBA to know that the key to sales is to know your demographic.
That?s why Girl Scout Danielle Lei should earn a merit badge in business for setting up shop outside of a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco.
Lei sold 117 boxes of Dulce de Leches and Tagalong Girl Scout cookies during a two-hour stint outside The Green Cross pharmacy over Presidents Day weekend. According to her mother, Lei sold 37 more boxes catering to the munchies crowd than what she sold during the same two-hour period outside a Safeway store the next day, proving once again that when it comes to business it?s all about location, location, location.
“Just 11% of Americans hold a ?favorable view? of the East Asian communist state, which is lower than any of the other 22 countries mentioned in the survey.”
I’d like to know who these 11% are who have a favorable view of north korea.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
“Just 11% of Americans hold a ?favorable view? of the East Asian communist state, which is lower than any of the other 22 countries mentioned in the survey.”
I’d like to know who these 11% are who have a favorable view of north korea.[/quote]
…well besides dennis rodman, there are bound to be a few asians here that think it’s grand.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
“Just 11% of Americans hold a ?favorable view? of the East Asian communist state, which is lower than any of the other 22 countries mentioned in the survey.”
I’d like to know who these 11% are who have a favorable view of north korea.[/quote]
-
Some Americans are stupid enough to not know the difference between North and South Korea.
-
Girls who would bang Dennis Rodman and Rodman’s family.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/23/Hagel-s-Deep-Cuts-for-Military-Announced
So, can we safely assume cuts to other area’s of the government are coming now as well?
Lol
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/23/Hagel-s-Deep-Cuts-for-Military-Announced
So, can we safely assume cuts to other area’s of the government are coming now as well?
Lol[/quote]
I actually don’t mind this too much, I would hope to see equivalent cuts in some of the bloated entitlement programs.
/not gonna happen
CNN cancels Piers Morgan.
In his interview with the Times, Morgan said he thought the audience may have grown weary of his focus on gun control – a major topic of conversation on the show in the wake of several mass shootings in the United States.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing,” he said. “There is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.”
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/23/Hagel-s-Deep-Cuts-for-Military-Announced
So, can we safely assume cuts to other area’s of the government are coming now as well?
Lol[/quote]
I actually don’t mind this too much, I would hope to see equivalent cuts in some of the bloated entitlement programs.
/not gonna happen[/quote]
Ya I agree. I’ve got no problem with cuts (depending on what they are) to the military. Obviously equivalent cuts to entitlement programs aren’t going to happen, which is why I loled.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I thought this was an insightful column on the current controversy surrounding the several states that are passing, or trying to pass, laws that protect folks who on the basis of religious freedom abstain from providing a product or service to gays planning a wedding.
"A different example might be useful. Non-discrimination laws doubtless apply to musicians. If a Christian rock band reluctantly agrees to a same-sex wedding gig out of fear of legal retribution, and the brides make a set list including ‘Same Love,’ ‘Born This Way,’ ‘Glad to Be Gay,’ and ‘Let Them Love,’ what should the musicians do? If they refuse, they might be sued or face fines. But if they agree, they’d be forced to use their vocal talents to advocate ideas they don’t share. It’s a Hobson?s choice that seems un-American.
"Besides, the government could someday start outlawing the freedom to express all kinds of viewpoints. Do we really want to set such a dangerous precedent just to shelter the feelings of gay couples?
"In any event, nobody’s Scripture reads, ‘Thou shalt not serve a burrito to a lesbian.’ But the Bible does say a man shall ‘leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24). Marriage for every faith tradition in the world has been two-gendered until very recently, and people should be allowed to convey their agreement with that definition and only that definition.
"As for the inevitable claims that nobody would allow interracial couples to be treated this way, I have to disagree. While it would be abhorrent for a baker to refuse to use a wedding cake topper with a white bride and a black groom, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement to do so. Permitting lots of bad things is a price we pay for living in a free country.
"So: Discrimination based on someone?s identity is wrong. But discrimination based on the inventive expression of someone’s viewpoint is also wrong.
Got it?"
Read more: Most gay marriage religious exemptions are not discriminatory | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
What is the best analogy here in terms of race when compared to a gay wedding?
OK - Refuse service to a straight (or gay) person ordering a cake for a gay wedding. Discriminating against the event and not the person ordering it
WRONG - Refuse service to a gay person ordering a birthday cake. Obvious discrimination against the person
So is there an example of above using race that would be okay?
- Refuse service for a wedding based on the fact its interracial? Is this OK/Wrong and is there a better example maybe? Something besides a wedding even.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I thought this was an insightful column on the current controversy surrounding the several states that are passing, or trying to pass, laws that protect folks who on the basis of religious freedom abstain from providing a product or service to gays planning a wedding.
"A different example might be useful. Non-discrimination laws doubtless apply to musicians. If a Christian rock band reluctantly agrees to a same-sex wedding gig out of fear of legal retribution, and the brides make a set list including ‘Same Love,’ ‘Born This Way,’ ‘Glad to Be Gay,’ and ‘Let Them Love,’ what should the musicians do? If they refuse, they might be sued or face fines. But if they agree, they’d be forced to use their vocal talents to advocate ideas they don’t share. It’s a Hobson?s choice that seems un-American.
"Besides, the government could someday start outlawing the freedom to express all kinds of viewpoints. Do we really want to set such a dangerous precedent just to shelter the feelings of gay couples?
"In any event, nobody’s Scripture reads, ‘Thou shalt not serve a burrito to a lesbian.’ But the Bible does say a man shall ‘leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24). Marriage for every faith tradition in the world has been two-gendered until very recently, and people should be allowed to convey their agreement with that definition and only that definition.
"As for the inevitable claims that nobody would allow interracial couples to be treated this way, I have to disagree. While it would be abhorrent for a baker to refuse to use a wedding cake topper with a white bride and a black groom, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement to do so. Permitting lots of bad things is a price we pay for living in a free country.
"So: Discrimination based on someone?s identity is wrong. But discrimination based on the inventive expression of someone’s viewpoint is also wrong.
Got it?"
Read more: Most gay marriage religious exemptions are not discriminatory | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
What is the best analogy here in terms of race when compared to a gay wedding?
OK - Refuse service to a straight (or gay) person ordering a cake for a gay wedding. Discriminating against the event and not the person ordering it
WRONG - Refuse service to a gay person ordering a birthday cake. Obvious discrimination against the person
So is there an example of above using race that would be okay?
- Refuse service for a wedding based on the fact its interracial? Is this OK/Wrong and is there a better example maybe? Something besides a wedding even.[/quote]
OK - Refuse to make a cake for a Klan rally
Wrong - Refuse to make a cake for any event that remotely might involve any single non-white member of society
Like I said in a different place on this topic:
Discrimination is very much legal and welcomed, even by the “tolerant” leftist that cry about it the loudest, as long as they approve of that discrimination. (Elective abortion is discriminating against the unborn child for example.)
The problem only comes up when someone doesn’t like the particular brand of discrimination.
Big picture tho… Turning down sales isn’t a very good business practice, and I would suggest some other form of atonement, if at all possible.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is the best analogy here in terms of race when compared to a gay wedding?
OK - Refuse service to a straight (or gay) person ordering a cake for a gay wedding. Discriminating against the event and not the person ordering it
WRONG - Refuse service to a gay person ordering a birthday cake. Obvious discrimination against the person
So is there an example of above using race that would be okay?
- Refuse service for a wedding based on the fact its interracial? Is this OK/Wrong and is there a better example maybe? Something besides a wedding even.[/quote]
It should be legal to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Who is not free to decide who and how he serves? A slave.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I thought this was an insightful column on the current controversy surrounding the several states that are passing, or trying to pass, laws that protect folks who on the basis of religious freedom abstain from providing a product or service to gays planning a wedding.
"A different example might be useful. Non-discrimination laws doubtless apply to musicians. If a Christian rock band reluctantly agrees to a same-sex wedding gig out of fear of legal retribution, and the brides make a set list including ‘Same Love,’ ‘Born This Way,’ ‘Glad to Be Gay,’ and ‘Let Them Love,’ what should the musicians do? If they refuse, they might be sued or face fines. But if they agree, they’d be forced to use their vocal talents to advocate ideas they don’t share. It’s a Hobson?s choice that seems un-American.
"Besides, the government could someday start outlawing the freedom to express all kinds of viewpoints. Do we really want to set such a dangerous precedent just to shelter the feelings of gay couples?
"In any event, nobody’s Scripture reads, ‘Thou shalt not serve a burrito to a lesbian.’ But the Bible does say a man shall ‘leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24). Marriage for every faith tradition in the world has been two-gendered until very recently, and people should be allowed to convey their agreement with that definition and only that definition.
"As for the inevitable claims that nobody would allow interracial couples to be treated this way, I have to disagree. While it would be abhorrent for a baker to refuse to use a wedding cake topper with a white bride and a black groom, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement to do so. Permitting lots of bad things is a price we pay for living in a free country.
"So: Discrimination based on someone?s identity is wrong. But discrimination based on the inventive expression of someone’s viewpoint is also wrong.
Got it?"
Read more: Most gay marriage religious exemptions are not discriminatory | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
What is the best analogy here in terms of race when compared to a gay wedding?
OK - Refuse service to a straight (or gay) person ordering a cake for a gay wedding. Discriminating against the event and not the person ordering it
WRONG - Refuse service to a gay person ordering a birthday cake. Obvious discrimination against the person
So is there an example of above using race that would be okay?
- Refuse service for a wedding based on the fact its interracial? Is this OK/Wrong and is there a better example maybe? Something besides a wedding even.[/quote]
How would you know the person is gay if it’s a birthday cake?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is the best analogy here in terms of race when compared to a gay wedding?
OK - Refuse service to a straight (or gay) person ordering a cake for a gay wedding. Discriminating against the event and not the person ordering it
WRONG - Refuse service to a gay person ordering a birthday cake. Obvious discrimination against the person
So is there an example of above using race that would be okay?
- Refuse service for a wedding based on the fact its interracial? Is this OK/Wrong and is there a better example maybe? Something besides a wedding even.[/quote]
It should be legal to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Who is not free to decide who and how he serves? A slave.[/quote]
Holyyyy cow, 100% agree.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Big picture tho… Turning down sales isn’t a very good business practice, and I would suggest some other form of atonement, if at all possible. [/quote]
This is my basic sentiment. Business should be free to serve whom ever they want and if “we” don’t approve “we” will just put them out of business…
It’s not rocket science.
I’m not sure why they need a law for this. Can’t Arizona just do this instead if a case of discrimination against gays comes up?
“Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws against constitutional court challenges if they consider them discriminatory”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I thought this was an insightful column on the current controversy surrounding the several states that are passing, or trying to pass, laws that protect folks who on the basis of religious freedom abstain from providing a product or service to gays planning a wedding.
"A different example might be useful. Non-discrimination laws doubtless apply to musicians. If a Christian rock band reluctantly agrees to a same-sex wedding gig out of fear of legal retribution, and the brides make a set list including ‘Same Love,’ ‘Born This Way,’ ‘Glad to Be Gay,’ and ‘Let Them Love,’ what should the musicians do? If they refuse, they might be sued or face fines. But if they agree, they’d be forced to use their vocal talents to advocate ideas they don’t share. It’s a Hobson?s choice that seems un-American.
"Besides, the government could someday start outlawing the freedom to express all kinds of viewpoints. Do we really want to set such a dangerous precedent just to shelter the feelings of gay couples?
"In any event, nobody’s Scripture reads, ‘Thou shalt not serve a burrito to a lesbian.’ But the Bible does say a man shall ‘leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24). Marriage for every faith tradition in the world has been two-gendered until very recently, and people should be allowed to convey their agreement with that definition and only that definition.
"As for the inevitable claims that nobody would allow interracial couples to be treated this way, I have to disagree. While it would be abhorrent for a baker to refuse to use a wedding cake topper with a white bride and a black groom, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement to do so. Permitting lots of bad things is a price we pay for living in a free country.
"So: Discrimination based on someone?s identity is wrong. But discrimination based on the inventive expression of someone’s viewpoint is also wrong.
Got it?"
Read more: Most gay marriage religious exemptions are not discriminatory | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
Newsflash! It’s over! State laws protecting the religious conscience of the business owner will fall like dominoes. Judges will decide that their state must recognize out of state homosexual weddings, and from there a guarantee that state’s opposition will crumble. Then the above scenarios for Christian businesses, where the Judge will rule against them.
Who in the world DIDN’T see that coming? The progressives won (not the libertarians).