Donald Trump Pledges To Sign Anti-LGBT Law To Permit Religious Discrimination - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51096673]or he's just attempting to reconcile two mutually contradictory positions whenever he posts - leading to absolute mockery because his reasons for supporting trump are untenable and intellectually and morally bankrupt pretty much all of the trump supporters i have seen tend to be extremely dishonest and hypocrites[/QUOTE] I remember when he said he was given unbiased info on why he should support Trump then when I asked him to provide the links, he gave us Trump's twitter and his official website lmao

As a Catholic and someone with gay and bi-sexual friends I feel sick. Like does Trump WANT to take us back to the year of the Crusades? You know the thing that most sane Christians these days are now declaring a dark time in our religion? Want more fuel for the fire?

I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marraige was to be recognized in every state? Does this mean that churches can turn down wedding ceremonies if they pull the bs "gay marraige is against our religion" card?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51096757]I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marraige was to be recognized in every state? Does this mean that churches can turn down wedding ceremonies if they pull the bs "gay marraige is against our religion" card?[/QUOTE] That's exactly what's happening here, and more.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51096757]I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marraige was to be recognized in every state? Does this mean that churches can turn down wedding ceremonies if they pull the bs "gay marraige is against our religion" card?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure churches can refuse whatever they want for any reason since it's under the 1st amendment. The only thing the SCOTUS called for was legal marriages, in the sense that they are through the state. Getting married in a church is strictly done as a religious marriage.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51096791]Pretty sure churches can refuse whatever they want for any reason since it's under the 1st amendment. The only thing the SCOTUS called for was legal marriages, in the sense that they are through the state. Getting married in a church is strictly done as a religious marriage.[/QUOTE] If the churches already have this right I am confused as to what the implications of the bill are.

If you read through the law as it's written all it does is prevent the federal government from changing taxes, grants, and government benefits based on the fact that people hold those beliefs. It by no means makes discrimination legal, more rather it's putting religious beliefs on par with other discrimination laws involving race and gender. It basically means Uncle Sam can't fuck with your taxes or benefits cause you believe that stuff. It's not even vague about it, it clearly states what "discriminatory actions" are in regards to the government. It doesn't mean that you can't be charged with discrimination, nor fined for discriminatory actions you yourself commit. What it does is close backdoor loopholes the government has used in the past to punish individuals and corporations in regards to the subject through taxes, benefits denials, and grant revocations. While that may sound like a good thing it only is because you agree with it, but you'd be singing the same tune if they did the same thing with something you don't agree with. With that being said I'm no supporter of Trump or his policies, I just prefer to actually read the law as it's written then some article that blows it out of proportion.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51096672]oh no a gay couple ordered a cake alert the fucking human rights council[/QUOTE]How unsurprising. I see your strawman you've built in between pained sobs and retort with: "Your rights end where mine begin." Not a hard concept but [I]hahaha maybe I'm just superhuman[/I] so who knows! I'm not going to clarify how dumb I think "G*D FEARIN' CAKES" and other assorted memes are, I've been here long enough for everyone to know my egalitarian opinions. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51096844]If you read through the law as it's written all it does is prevent the federal government from changing taxes, grants, and government benefits based on the fact that people hold those beliefs.[/QUOTE]Read the second part, specifically,[quote]withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, [B]license, certification, accreditation, [U]employment,[/U] or similar position or status from or to such person;[/B] or withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.[/quote]I've bolded the pertinent information for your pleasure, and underlined arguably the most important item. This goes beyond merely saying the government can't arbitrarily change your pay grade, it includes barring the federal government from firing anyone for an "act in accordance" with whatever they believe. Presumably this includes any and all federal employees, so if a soldier/sailor/airman/marine on leave up and guns down a pride parade he wouldn't ever sit in an Article 32 hearing because the government would be specifically barred from conducting one. That isn't to say he couldn't be slapped with like a hundred counts of murder at the [I]state[/I] level though, which this law doesn't and can't cover. Obviously that isn't good enough, but then again the whole thing is just bad all around.

[url]https://twitter.com/twinksfortrump[/url] wonder what they think about it

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096928]How unsurprising. I see your strawman you've built in between pained sobs and retort with: "Your rights end where mine begin." Not a hard concept but [I]hahaha maybe I'm just superhuman[/I] so who knows! I'm not going to clarify how dumb I think "G*D FEARIN' CAKES" and other assorted memes are, I've been here long enough for everyone to know my egalitarian opinions. Read the second part, specifically,I've bolded the pertinent information for your pleasure, and underlined arguably the most important item. This goes beyond merely saying the government can't arbitrarily change your pay grade, it includes barring the federal government from firing anyone for an "act in accordance" with whatever they believe. Presumably this includes any and all federal employees, so if a soldier/sailor/airman/marine on leave up and guns down a pride parade he wouldn't ever sit in an Article 32 hearing because the government would be specifically barred from conducting one. That isn't to say he couldn't be slapped with like a hundred counts of murder at the [I]state[/I] level though, which this law doesn't and can't cover. Obviously that isn't good enough, but then again the whole thing is just bad all around.[/QUOTE] Well for one, militarily they could still get an Article 134 cause that's the "fuck you we're going to get you" article. Two US laws don't hold true to military laws, as a similar clause would have to be enacted on the UCMJ. UCMJ =/= Federal laws. They are two separate entities. It also doesn't preclude termination period. One can still be fired for doing such things, and it would lay on the person fired to prove that it was that discrimination which was the exact cause of being fired. All the employer would have to state is that they were not fulfilling the duties of the position and there would be no issue.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51096672]oh no a gay couple ordered a cake alert the fucking human rights council[/QUOTE] he isn't wrong, but he isn't saying trump is right for doing this either so

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51096270]He said he isn't posting about politics until the debates because he doesn't like reading posts that disagree with his views.[/QUOTE] He had to retreat to his safe space. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096656] Or maybe it's emotionally exhausting for him and he chooses not to participate because arguing with the willfully ignorant isn't worth the stress. [I]Maybe.[/I][/QUOTE] If it were that exhausting arguing with the willfully ignorant, he'd be the only person still posting here.,

[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;51096303]I wonder how Milo will feel about this.[/QUOTE] Milo opposes gay marriage.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51096962]Well for one, militarily they could still get an Article 134 cause that's the "fuck you we're going to get you" article. Two US laws don't hold true to military laws, as a similar clause would have to be enacted on the UCMJ. UCMJ =/= Federal laws. They are two separate entities.[/QUOTE]Actually in this case I think the UCMJ wouldn't be able to pursue it since it's so vague, but I recall there being some sort of precedent for federal law applying in military court but I can't think of it. Even if it doesn't, you're right, but if it were an officer instead of enlisted then 133 could count too. That aside,[QUOTE]It also doesn't preclude termination period. One can still be fired for doing such things, and it would lay on the person fired to prove that it was that discrimination which was the exact cause of being fired. All the employer would have to state is that they were not fulfilling the duties of the position and there would be no issue.[/QUOTE]Except they can't be fired for the specific reason laid out in the bill, that would be illegal. So sure the government could fire the employee, no matter the service, but it wouldn't make it okay and then the employee could turn right around and sue the government for whatever damages. Just because it's illegal for the government to do that doesn't stop them just like it hasn't stopped them any other time, but it does open up an opportunity for legal recourse. Actually I thought of something else on top of all of this, the law would actually conflict with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as defined by the EEOC in 2011 to include LGBT persons. So if anyone in a federal agency denied employment on the basis of their religious opinions on same-sex marriage (acting on their beliefs, etc) then they'd run afoul of the Civil Rights Act but they'd be okay because of this new law but that wouldn't be okay and so on and so on and so on. So chalk that up to yet another reason why this is not only bad but also poorly written because I don't think anyone here wants to see the CRA undermined like that.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096656] Religious freedoms are human rights. [/QUOTE] Religious freedom is a human right. But that doesn't make it an excuse to infringe on other human rights.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096656] Or maybe it's emotionally exhausting for him and he chooses not to participate because arguing with the willfully ignorant isn't worth the stress. [I]Maybe.[/I][/QUOTE] It is pretty draining arguing with the willfully ignorant but I'd imagine it's easier for someone who presumably actually likes the person he is going up to bat for.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;51097016]If it were that exhausting arguing with the willfully ignorant, he'd be the only person still posting here.,[/QUOTE]Since he hasn't commented about this you don't know if he's revised his opinion of Trump [I]at all[/I] so this entire statement you've made is just snarky bullshit. Actually maybe "willfully ignorant" wasn't the correct term to use, it doesn't [I]quite[/I] describe what happens when Martin tries to go about his merry way. If you're somehow unsure of what I'm talking about refer to your fucking post and the several posts made in this thread about the guy. Dredging shit up from other threads just for the sake of getting some ~sick zinger~ in is dumb, there was literally no reason to bring up Pvt. Martin at all. [QUOTE=Kyle902;51097100]Religious freedom is a human right. But that doesn't make it an excuse to infringe on other human rights.[/QUOTE]See above for more information about how this whole thing is a misunderstanding of, "your rights end where mine begin." Codifying this "defense of the 1st Amendment" into law would be a terrible, terrible mistake. I do think there needs to be something that recognizes the right of an individual to opt out of something for religious reasons, so we don't have another infamous gay wedding cake incident, but at the same time not [I]mess with the fucking Civil Rights Act.[/I] [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51097123]It is pretty draining arguing with the willfully ignorant but I'd imagine it's easier for someone who presumably actually likes the person he is going up to bat for.[/QUOTE]Probably, but I fully understand why he wouldn't want to participate in these threads and it should be obvious to anyone. People accuse me of being a wrathful asshole in some way who's on the verge of going postal, so if that's their reaction to "colorful language" then it's not hard to imagine similar shit has a similar effect. Very few things actually get my goat but this "oh hurr FRENDLY REMINDER" type of posting just to stick knives in somebody drives me up the goddamn wall. It's one of the few times where I'm [I]actually[/I] annoyed to no end because it serves no purpose other than to be cruel and belligerent. Hell, I'd be okay if he was renowned for being some insane shitposter who swore to eat his hat or something because that would be a bit more relevant than just "ha, martin's like gay or something idk but where's ur pride now faggot!!! lmao trump!" Fuck that. Under what goofy circumstances is that ever okay?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51097145] Dredging shit up from other threads just for the sake of getting some ~sick zinger~ in is dumb, there was literally no reason to bring up Pvt. Martin at all. [/QUOTE] Because the demagogues that evangelized Trump are suddenly hard to find after being incredibly active as recently as September 11th. The silence is deafening when all you have heard is white noise about Clinton's corruption and then the same people have nothing to say regarding the Trump Foundation. Or when they swear that Trump is better for LGBT rights than Clinton only for this shit to happen.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51097145]Since he hasn't commented about this you don't know if he's revised his opinion of Trump [I]at all[/I] so this entire statement you've made is just snarky bullshit. Actually maybe "willfully ignorant" wasn't the correct term to use, it doesn't [I]quite[/I] describe what happens when Martin tries to go about his merry way. If you're somehow unsure of what I'm talking about refer to your fucking post and the several posts made in this thread about the guy. Dredging shit up from other threads just for the sake of getting some ~sick zinger~ in is dumb, there was literally no reason to bring up Pvt. Martin at all. See above for more information about how this whole thing is a misunderstanding of, "your rights end where mine begin." [/QUOTE] Pvt. Martin gets mentioned because he's the prime example of how just how effective Trump's cult of personality is at competely deluding not just the usual schmucks, but [I]people who should know better.[/I]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51097188]Because the demagogues that evangelized Trump are suddenly hard to find[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Mingebox;51097231]Pvt. Martin gets mentioned because he's the prime example[/QUOTE]I don't care how hard Trump supporters are to find or how much you think that this particular one is a such a fine example of the propaganda machine at work, all of this could have been avoided by not calling him out by name. I don't mention you every time I say "Hillary supporter," Raidyr, even if I happen to think of you I'm not going to needlessly insult you and stack every dumb thing any Hillarite has ever done on your shoulders. Pvt. Martin is [I]not[/I] representative of all Trump supporters, he's not even a typical one, so I don't understand why either of you think it's suddenly okay to treat him like he's the king of the Trumplican hivemind.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51097100]Religious freedom is a human right. But that doesn't make it an excuse to infringe on other human rights.[/QUOTE] Your wedding cake is not a human right.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51097277]I don't care how hard Trump supporters are to find or how much you think that this particular one is a such a fine example of the propaganda machine at work, all of this could have been avoided by not calling him out by name. I don't mention you every time I say "Hillary supporter," Raidyr, even if I happen to think of you I'm not going to needlessly insult you and stack every dumb thing any Hillarite has ever done on your shoulders. Pvt. Martin is [I]not[/I] representative of all Trump supporters, he's not even a typical one, so I don't understand why either of you think it's suddenly okay to treat him like he's the king of the Trumplican hivemind.[/QUOTE] I [I]specifically [/I]didn't mention him by name in either of my two posts. Ultimately he is one of a number of people who made very specific claims about Trump or Clinton and I think many people are interested to know what their thoughts are now that some of these claims turned out to be false.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096928] Presumably this includes any and all federal employees, so if a soldier/sailor/airman/marine on leave up and guns down a pride parade he wouldn't ever sit in an Article 32 hearing because the government would be specifically barred from conducting one. That isn't to say he couldn't be slapped with like a hundred counts of murder at the [I]state[/I] level though, which this law doesn't and can't cover. Obviously that isn't good enough, but then again the whole thing is just bad all around.[/QUOTE] but that would be a violation of both the 14th and civil rights act, which means the SCOTUS would either have to overturn the civil rights act if they even upheld it as constitutional, which would just destroy this country overnight [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] [quote][B]Defines "person"[/B] as any person regardless of religious affiliation,[B] including corporations and other entities regardless [U]of for-profit or nonprofit status.[/U][/B][/quote] oh this is a lovely gem. This enshrines on a federal level, the right for federal employers to fire a person based on what they (the company) believes in. So basically they can terminate your employment for any reason with a trivial justification. the bit with the for-profit status means that you don't even have to be a religious organization as defined by tax-exempt status to do this, which means any company in this country can do this without worry of penalty.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51096810]If the churches already have this right I am confused as to what the implications of the bill are.[/QUOTE] [quote]The broadly written law would effectively legalise all discrimination against LGBT people in all sectors – from employment to retail to healthcare – as long as the person discriminating claims it was due to their religion.[/quote] it would, for example, allow an employer to fire (or refuse to hire) someone on the basis of their sexual orientation

oh lovely, my fuckwit of a congressman cosponsored this. more reason why i hate my gerrymandered fucking district, the guy has never set foot in my side of the state but due to 2010 redistricting it stretches 200 miles [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;51097378]it would, for example, allow an employer to fire (or refuse to hire) someone on the basis of their sexual orientation[/QUOTE] no no, based solely on belief that marriage is between men and women, and that sex is for marriage, they can deny employment to anyone because they believe that they weren't virgins or have multiple partners or have even had sex outside of marriage, amazingly they've brought back virginity tests and wrapped it in a star spangled banner [quote]basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Cructo;51097110]Actual infringements on human rights are illegal though, regardless of religious beliefs[/QUOTE] Let me explain something to you. As simply as I can, to ensure there'll be no miscommunication. It's clear from what you're saying that you didn't read the sources, so I shall educate you. In the past, many years before you were born, American businesses, even those that were government subsidised, were allowed to refuse service to blacks or people of color, on any grounds, including the grounds that their religious convictions held that blacks were evil. This bill, that your beloved Trump has pledged to sign into law, would do the exact same thing, only with gay couples. Businesses, including government-subsidized businesses, would be allowed to deny gays service based on their religious convictions. This would not only smash the separation of church and state, one of the only things that keeps parts of America from becoming a theocracy as horrific as Saudi Arabia, It would be a government-sanctioned bill condoning that specific type of discrimination. And with Trump's puppets in supreme court, it would stay as law. Let's hear you defend it some more. Go on. We're all waiting to hear it. Just as I'm still waiting to hear about your experts and your proof from the other discussions we've had today. Remember, it was only the other day in another thread that you claimed that Donald Trump did not advance the views of those who were bigoted, sexist or racist, after all. I'm sure you've got a convincing argument all ready to go for this one.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51097357]but that would be a violation of both the 14th and civil rights act, which means the SCOTUS would either have to overturn the civil rights act if they even upheld it as constitutional, which would just destroy this country overnight[/QUOTE]Yeah that's precisely my point, but admittedly that crazed-shooter scenario was a bit over the top though. Point being it would cause problems, so yeah it's a real contradiction and signing it could have terrible consequences beyond the whole "but now they can discriminate against gays!" I mean that's bad but if this goes up to the top it hits one of the most important pieces of legislation to secure the liberty of individual Americans. [QUOTE]oh this is a lovely gem. This enshrines on a federal level, the right for federal employers to fire a person based on what they (the company) believes in. So basically they can terminate your employment for any reason with a trivial justification. the bit with the for-profit status means that you don't even have to be a religious organization as defined by tax-exempt status to do this, which means any company in this country can do this without worry of penalty.[/QUOTE]Well see that's where it hits the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 2011 ruling that LGBT persons are covered under the "on the basis of sex" part. This is where things go to shit because this either has authority over the CRA and weakens it or the CRA remains supreme and thus this law is completely worthless.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51097437]As amusing as your little "vendetta" against me is, try to properly argue for once. In our current year, there are not a lot of businesses that would refuse service to gays. Most people, including non-LGBT demographics, are against companies refusing their services to LGBT people, as we've seen recently with, for example, Chick-fil-a. So, even if this law was for the sole purpose of that, it would drive bigoted small companies to failure and would damage big companies' reputation. And from a purely libertarian point of view, allowing companies to refuse service based on their beliefs would be a separation of church/state, as the state would not meddle into their business. I'm not even going to go into your pointless comparison between America and Saudi Arabia because it's outright stupid. Just goes to show how immature you are.[/QUOTE] First, I'm not interested in public opinion. I am interested in the role of government. Why does a politician ostensibly claiming to represent all Americans wish to pass a bill that limits the legal protections granted to a huge portion of his constituents? Could it possibly be the same reason that he pledged to remove the restrictions on churches officially endorsing a political candidate for government? Second, your assertion that this would be an example of separation of church and state is a load of shit. How are Americans helped at all by legalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation by both private businesses and businesses that receive government funding? This is the exact opposite of separation of church and state. Want more proof? Here, from the Human Rights Campaign article linked in the source: [quote] FADA is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that just does not exist. The U.S. Constitution provides strong protections for individuals and organizations to practice their religion and to freely speak about beliefs. Nothing in federal law, including the right to receive exempt tax status, a federal grant or contract, or other federal benefit, can be denied on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief. The federal government also has an equally strong obligation and interest in eradicating harmful discrimination. Policies and programs that discriminate against a third party—an employee, a hospital patient, a homeless family—have no business being funded by the federal government. The right to believe is fundamental. The right to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate is not. LGBTQ people and their families continue to face discrimination across our nation. FADA would allow individuals and businesses using taxpayer dollars to ignore the few federal policies that do exist to protect them if they claim the protections aren’t in line with their individual beliefs about marriage. Executive Order 11,246 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors. However, under FADA, the federal government would be required to continue to contract with a business with a record of discriminatory employment practices against married gays and lesbians if that employer cited their belief that same-sex marriage was wrong as the reason for the discrimination. Currently, hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid must allow a patient to have any visitor they request—including a same-sex spouse. Under FADA, a hospital could state that allowing such visits would sanction same-sex marriage and would be a violation of their religious liberty. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has also recently issued guidance that shelters receiving HUD grants must not discriminate against same-sex married couples. An organization could cite FADA and provide their religious conviction against same-sex marriage as a reason to put a same-sex couple back on the street. Despite protections in the Fair Housing Act and strong administrative guidance from HUD, commercial landlords could be empowered to violate fair housing laws by refusing housing to a single mother or same-sex couple based on religious belief that sexual relations are reserved to different-sex married couples. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides explicit protections from discrimination against LGBTQ beneficiaries. However, under FADA, an emergency shelter receiving VAWA funds to provide services for survivors of intimate partner violence could turn away someone in a same-sex marriage because of their religious belief. The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act grants a statutory right to 12 weeks of leave for personal illness or caregiving – including caring for a spouse. The Department of Labor has issued clear administrative guidance that these rights extend to same-sex married couples. However, under FADA, closely held businesses or not-for-profit organizations would be allowed to discriminate by refusing to let an employee care for their sick same-sex spouse despite these clear federal protections.[/quote] See, this is how I [I]know[/I] you didn't read it. It clearly explains that the bill will allow state-sponsored businesses to discriminate against gays, and strip away existing protections from them. The freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948. Trump would, by passing this bill, force the government to support businesses that discriminated against Americans based on sexual orientation. If you feel I've treated you with contempt thus far, allow me to explain why. You have declared your support of a candidate who, along with his running mate, has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to strip political dissenters, religious and other minorities, and those who do not share his ideology of their freedoms. Who has promised to take measures that will lead to the collapse of the American economy, and create severe global instability and bloodshed. Who has lashed out in racist and misogynistic tirades against those who criticize him, who claims to know better than experts, and whose narcissism is only matched by his stupidity. A candidate who has lied even more than Hillary has. A candidate who is so insecure he had to brag about the size of his penis on national television. A candidate so sociopathic that he crowed about having predicted the Orlando attacks while the victims lay dead in the nightclub. My problem with you, Cructo, is that all this time, when faced with mountains of evidence that disprove your vapid lies, you have dismissed them arbitrarily, without once supporting your claims with a shred of the evidence we have asked you to produce. You are, in my opinion, worthy of nothing more than my contempt until you can demonstrate some intellectual integrity. So since you don't seem to get the concept of irony, allow me to reflect your own statement: Man up, show some real spine, and "try to properly argue for once".

[QUOTE=beanhead;51097288]Your wedding cake is not a human right.[/QUOTE] What about my right to have a job at a place in which I don't have to lie about who I am and say I am a single man looking for women in order to have fair employment opportunities? What about my right to go out in public with my partner, without fear of being seen by a co-worker or superior at my company and being terminated due to their sincere (and federally protected) religious beliefs? My right to go on a date without being stopped at the door and publicly (and sometimes loudly and/or threateningly) shamed for who I am and who I love before being told to get lost? My right to not have to resort to only going to a very limited network of gay-friendly establishments in order to get my employment, medical care, dental work, taxes, legal advocacy and defense, and education? Does any of that matter? Or are the religious liberties of those involved to refuse essential and necessary services to me more important? And just to add a bit of extrapolation, do you realize this applies to Muslims and all other non Christian/Catholic faiths as well, enshrining racism and Islamophobia under the same act? I imagine the same people who believe marriage is to be between strictly a man and a woman tend to imagine couples of their own faith being married and nobody else. How many people now have a sincerely held religious belief that Muslims are inherently anti-Christian? There are sects of Christianity in America which sincerely believe that black people descended from Cain, and thus are born of sin. Should they be allowed to refuse employment and services based on [I]their [/I]sincere religious beliefs? The Pentacostal church (in it's many varieties) preaches a percentage of the time in a number of their various interior sects that black people were the embodiment of temptation for Americans to overcome and that the Native Americans were placed in America by God to give us a challenge. What about their sincerely held religious beliefs?

Hey, I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, but is screencapping and reposting the contents of PMs allowed as per the rules? It's something I'm not sure about. Let's just say that Cructo was very salty that I'd backed him into a corner yet again, it'd really be a shame to have to keep this gem to myself. [editline]abc[/editline] It's not as good as the PM he sent me, but Cructo basically reposted a part of his PM to me as a profile message. So just have a look at my profile if you're curious.