Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ICE should be set loose on this guy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1010656810527789059? ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etw
eet



Nah, no bias here.

If the Left didn't do things that were hypocritical then they wouldn't do anything at all

Lock her up.

A business owner is under no obligation whatsoever to sell you anything or provide you with their services.

That baker should have been smarter about it at the end of the day. If I was against gay marriage the last thing I would be is a phucking baker/cake decorator and even if I was, I'd keep my mouth shut and rack up those pink dollars. Gay people must make up around 40% of a baker's profits.

I'm actually unaware of any stories about Muslim bakers refusing to sell a gay guy a donut, don't get me wrong, I'm almost certain it's happened and you're right, it's totally hypocritical. Thing with me is, I try not to get worked up with the various hypocrisies that the left generally executes. You're giving them what they want IMO.

Originally posted by samhain
I'm actually unaware of any stories about Muslim bakers refusing to sell a gay guy a donut, don't get me wrong, I'm almost certain it's happened and you're right, it's totally hypocritical. Thing with me is, I try not to get worked up with the various hypocrisies that the left generally executes. You're giving them what they want IMO.

There is a case to pay attention to in Canada. Tranny calls up a place that does waxes, asks if they will wax trannies. The business needs to ask the manager. Manager calls the tranny back and say we leave it up to our technicians whether or not they wanna do waxes on men and the current technician is a muslim who is not comfy doing so.

Now tranny is suing.

We get to see who is higher up on the victim totem pole: muslims or mentally ill men who feel they are women. It's gonna be hard for leftists to decide. Makes me smile.

Restaurant Owner Who Booted Sanders Says Gay Employees Too Triggered By WH Press Secretary

I'd say they are butthurt, but since they are gay their butts are always probably hurting.


ZING!

Originally posted by samhain
That baker should have been smarter about it at the end of the day. If I was against gay marriage the last thing I would be is a phucking baker/cake decorator and even if I was, I'd keep my mouth shut and rack up those pink dollars. Gay people must make up around 40% of a baker's profits.

I think it was a setup.

Shattered Glass fabricating. It happened, they were all in on it.


It just doesn't make any sense otherwise. I'm Catholic. and no one would care about selling a cake to a gay couple.

Originally posted by cdtm
I think it was a setup.

Shattered Glass fabricating. It happened, they were all in on it.


It just doesn't make any sense otherwise. I'm Catholic. and no one would care about selling a cake to a gay couple.

Gay marriage wasn't even legal in the state at the time lol.

Yeah I do think a lot of these are setups. I also think the reactions they claim they had are lies. One guy from the gay couple said he was essentially in tears and hysterical over this.

That's a mental illness. Either it's a lie or the guy is mentally ill.

Originally posted by samhain
A business owner is under no obligation whatsoever to sell you anything or provide you with their services.

Unless someone is covered under a protected class.

Which does not include political affiliation, oddly. Seems like an oversight, as political discrimination is one of the oldest forms of bias, and certainly a common problem today.

Originally posted by Surtur
the current technician is a muslim who is not comfy doing so.


I'd side with the Muslim on this. I just don't think that anybody should be made to do something they are uncomfortable with. The tranny is free to look elsewhere for the service, the Muslim is also free to look for alternative employment I suppose. In fact, the tranny is missing out on a gap in the market for transgender/transsexual spa days, instead of making a big hurrah of it they could bring about real change.

Originally posted by samhain
I'd side with the Muslim on this. I just don't think that anybody should be made to do something they are uncomfortable with. The tranny is free to look elsewhere for the service, the Muslim is also free to look for alternative employment I suppose. In fact, the tranny is missing out on a gap in the market for transgender/transsexual spa days, instead of making a big hurrah of it they could bring about real change.

I'd side with the muslim too. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd side with the muslim too. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Agreed.

Originally posted by samhain
A business owner is under no obligation whatsoever to sell you anything or provide you with their services.




Agreed. That is the only part of this story I was okay with. They don't like her and who she represents. If they want to throw her out, so be it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Restaurant Owner Who Booted Sanders Says Gay Employees Too Triggered By WH Press Secretary

I'd say they are butthurt, but since they are gay their butts are always probably hurting.


ZING!

haha, dammit, dude.


That's definitely not how anal sex works close to 100% of the time. Very few gay dudes go around saying, "I want to tear that ass up" or "I want my ass torn up."

I respect the owners right to deny service, this story is just more noise to fill up the 24 hour media cycle.

I don't see this as a violation of ethics, just more loud noises.

Originally posted by dadudemon
haha, dammit, dude.


That's definitely not how anal sex works close to 100% of the time. Very few gay dudes go around saying, "I want to tear that ass up" or "I want my ass torn up."

Sounds like you know some boring gay dudes.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sounds like you know some boring gay dudes.

get a new baker, Sanders!

SHS handled this with class. Didn't argue with the leftist cultist. Didn't call for people to boycott them. And before people say she took to twitter to complain: this is only because the employees themselves began gleefully tweeting, so she made a tweet confirming what had happened.

She isn't whining or talking about suing, or otherwise acting like whiny little b*tch. She didn't leave the restaurant in tears. She's better than the gay couple. Full stop.

Originally posted by samhain
That baker should have been smarter about it at the end of the day. If I was against gay marriage the last thing I would be is a phucking baker/cake decorator and even if I was, I'd keep my mouth shut and rack up those pink dollars. Gay people must make up around 40% of a baker's profits.

LoL @ the Cult of Trump flipping out cos one of their own now was denied service.

Indeed, love seeing them go after each other. TDS. Good little cultists.

You must be at over 9,000 pretend victories by now, sport. Easily. Congratulations

Originally posted by Robtard
You must be at over 9,000 pretend victories by now, sport. Easily. Congratulations

https://i.imgur.com/SgByQUS.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL @ the Cult of Trump flipping out cos one of their own now was denied service.
I'm more upset at the flagrant hypocrisy and double standard. As well as these delusional idiots trying to censor her on twitter.

People have the right to refuse their service and labor to anyone.

This is the way the Cult of Trump wanted it, so now they're getting it. Somehow it's a problem when one of their own is refused. SHS was a fool in using her work account to vent, she should have used her personal account. But then again, she's just following Trump's shitty example:

"The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders," Donald Trump tweeted this morning. "I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside."


Personally, the owner should have let her eat, be better than them I say. Owner should have followed Obama's 'they go low, we go high' example.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is the way the Cult of Trump wanted it, so now they're getting it. Somehow it's a problem when one of their own is refused.

Personally, the owner should have let her eat, be better than them I say.
Be better... than "them"?

That's implying being in favor of what the baker did is the same as being in favor of his right to do what he did.

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, the owner should have let her eat, be better than them I say. Owner should have followed Obama's 'they go low, we go high' example.


I thought Obama's idea was, "If they go low, I kill their wives and children with drone strikes and claim it was an accident."?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Be better... than "them"?

That's implying being in favor of what the baker did is the same as being in favor of his right to do what he did. What the baker did was shitty, I don't care if it's legal, it's still a shitty thing to do.

Anyhow, yeah, the Red Hen lady should have been better morally and let that trashbag SHS eat in peace.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought Obama's idea was, "If they go low, I kill their wives and children with drone strikes and claim it was an accident."?

I'm talking about the other idea

Originally posted by Robtard
What the baker did was shitty, I don't care if it's legal, it's still a shitty thing to do.
I don't recall many people making arguments to justify the morality of what the baker did, just the morality of him having the right to control his own labor and property.

I just wish both sides could stop being hypocrites about all this nonsense. I mean whoever stops first gains the moral high ground here. It's stupid to continuously undercut your own position by trying to stoop to the other side's level. It's a large part of the reason that many independents consider both parties equally bad.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't recall many people making arguments to justify the morality of what the baker did, just the morality of him having the right to control his own labor and property. Then the Cult of Trump should shut the **** up about the Red Hen restaurant owner exercising her right to do the same. Repeat: This is the way threy wanted it; now they're getting it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then the Cult of Trump should shut the **** up about the Red Hen restaurant owner exercising her right to do the same. Repeat: This is the way threy wanted it, now they're getting it.
I fully agree, they totally should. And people on the left should stop bitching about the baker since so many artists refused to play for Trump's inauguration. We can't force people to support things that they're morally against in this country... that's a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm talking about the other idea


Trump thought Obama's drone strikes on innocents was such a good idea, he doubled down on it and is well on his way to surpass both Bush and Obama, combined. HOOORAY FOR AMERICA MURDERING PEOPLE!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't recall many people making arguments to justify the morality of what the baker did, just the morality of him having the right to control his own labor and property.

Right.


Kick people like SHS out of your restaurants all the time, no problem. But to lie that she had ethics violations - when she confirms, publicly, that she was kicked out for being part of the Trump Administration - is what this thread is about.

Maybe The Right would do that ,if the LEFT would stop doing this type of stuff....

Left Wing Extremists/Nuts Spit on Florida AG Pam Bondi while at movies


SO it should continue to be pointed out that the LEFT are in NO Way taking a more moral high ground on this.

Leftists are Truly Horrible People.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Maybe The Right would do that ,if the LEFT would stop doing this type of stuff....

Left Wing Extremists/Nuts Spit on Florida AG Pam Bondi while at movies


SO it should continue to be pointed out that the LEFT are in NO Way taking a more moral high ground on this.

Leftists are Truly Horrible People.



Spitting on someone is battery and can come with jail time. Are they really that stupid?

Well they are Leftists so.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Trump thought Obama's drone strikes on innocents was such a good idea, he doubled down on it and is well on his way to surpass both Bush and Obama, combined. HOOORAY FOR AMERICA MURDERING PEOPLE!

He's already beaten Obama's civilian death count of eight years total in less than a year. (you posted the body count numbers awhile back)

Obama should honestly write Trump a thank you letter, as Trump's making him look better and better by comparison. Presidents are seen/judged in comparison to the president that came before and the president that came after. Just how it works. Obama is sitting between the guy who got us into a disastrous and unpopular war based on an untruth (can't say lie) and Trump.

Whomever wins after Trump, the bar will be set so low that that'll basically just have to be not a complete 100% shitlord and they've be praised.

I don't mind when its criminals and bad guys getting killed.
But then the Leftists like Robbie always do support Criminals over Innocent People.

Its why Leftists are such Horrible Horrible People.

The right of businesses to deny service to members of the public based on their moral convictions is what conservatives wanted. It is the position the Trump Department of Justice took in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The right of businesses to deny service to members of the public based on their moral convictions is what conservatives wanted. It is the position the Trump Department of Justice took in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
I honestly don't think anyone minds except insofar as it allows them to point out hypocrisy(which they've done adequately and should now shut up about). Notice the chick isn't talking about suing the restaurant...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The right of businesses to deny service to members of the public based on their moral convictions is what conservatives wanted. It is the position the Trump Department of Justice took in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JhowdrRUIAAzwMU/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
Obama should honestly write Trump a thank you letter, as Trump's making him look better and better by comparison.

Right, the things I hated the most about Obama's presidency and Trump just has to one-up Obama on it. That's terrible.

Presidents are seen/judged in comparison to the president that came before and the president that came after. Just how it works. Obama is sitting between the guy who got us into a disastrous and unpopular war based on an untruth (can't say lie) and Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard
Whomever wins after Trump, the bar will be set so low that that'll basically just have to be not a complete 100% shitlord and they've be praised.

In general, presidents carry a certain professionalism and class (that's part of what gets them elected). I think it's very much impossible for someone to be worse than Trump next election.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm more upset at the flagrant hypocrisy and double standard. As well as these delusional idiots trying to censor her on twitter.

People have the right to refuse their service and labor to anyone.

Bingo. I am in favor of people being able to refuse service. But if you're going to whine about it...you are a hypocrite if you applaud what happened to SHS, as many leftists have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, the things I hated the most about Obama's presidency and Trump just has to one-up Obama on it. That's terrible.

In general, presidents carry a certain professionalism and class (that's part of what gets them elected). I think it's very much impossible for someone to be worse than Trump next election.

Not so much as "we'll get someone even worse", just that they'll be able to get away with a lot more, as the bar has been effectively lowered.

Then again, I fully expect the Family Values Conservatives to once again and make it all about "family values" the day Trump leaves.

Also this bullshit about going after the Trump administration's twitters.

They despise that Trump and co can use twitter to reach the people directly, and that Trump did what anyone else on twitter is able to do and block parasites seeking only to advance their own career by shitposting to Trump for all their little friends to see.

Until the media stops being misleading or outright lying about Trump twitter is a necessary evil. And they do lie. Even about weird things. Remember koigate? CNN edited footage of Trump feeding fish to try to make him look bad.

That is how low they will sink lol.

Trump doesn't need Twitter to reach people directly though, as POTUS he has other means to do that if he so wished, he just likes Tweeting, typically like a retard because the Cult of Trump eats up everything he says so it makes his spreading of misinformation easy.

But sure, Trump's a victim, always a victim.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump doesn't need Twitter to reach people directly though, as POTUS he has other means to do that if he so wished, he just likes Tweeting, typically like a retard because the Cult of Trump eats up everything he says so it makes his spreading of misinformation easy.

But sure, Trump's a victim, always a victim.

Name a quicker and easier way to reach people directly.

Sorry, not going to play your silly strawmming nonsense, sport. In fact, I said Twitter makes it "easy". But hey, you tried.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, not going to play your silly strawmming nonsense, sport. In fact, I said Twitter makes it "easy". But hey, you tried.

Okay, then just name the way you think he should reach out to people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The right of businesses to deny service to members of the public based on their moral convictions is what conservatives wanted. It is the position the Trump Department of Justice took in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

No, don't be a weasel. It's an all or nothing thing. This is okay, as long as the cake thing is okay.

Is the cake thing okay?

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, then just name the way you think he should reach out to people.
Now you're strawmanning me and making it seem like a have a problem with Trump tweeting incessantly. Anyhow.

But I don't, at first I thought his lying constantly and using Twitter was bad for the country as a whole, but now his silly tweeting hurts him more then helps him. Sure the Cult of Trump eats up all his lies and silly antics, but they're (eg you) going to support/vote for him regardless of what he does. The moderate voter though, the voter who voted for him on a chance because they fell for his con, the fence-sitting voter; they mostly see a whining unhinged man-baby spreading lie after lie on social media. A man who is still screaming "But Clinton!" 18+ months into his presidency, with no sign of stopping. These are the facts.


Edit: Meant "mostly", not "moistly". Fixed.

Lol...wow. Okay.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump doesn't need Twitter to reach people directly though, as POTUS he has other means to do that if he so wished, he just likes Tweeting, typically like a retard because the Cult of Trump eats up everything he says so it makes his spreading of misinformation easy.

But sure, Trump's a victim, always a victim.
Oh yeah his tweets are retarded. What does it tell you about his opposition though that they'd sue him for blocking them on twitter for trying to piggyback their careers off of insulting him and looking really kewl to their buddies? It tells me that they're pretty pathetic. So pathetic they don't have the commanding lead that they should have in the midterms in an off year election with Donald Trump as president.

When these people are scrambling to try and control Trump and friends' twitters, it comes across as either desperate or petty. Either way it's just sad.

Wait, you're okay with Trump blocking people from Tweeting to him in response? I thought you loved freedom.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wait, you're okay with Trump blocking people from Tweeting to him in response? I thought you loved freedom.
I don't think blocking someone on social media is a violation of the first amendment. I think people should have the freedom to block whoever they want on social media.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh yeah his tweets are retarded. What does it tell you about his opposition though that they'd sue him for blocking them on twitter for trying to piggyback their careers off of insulting him and looking really kewl to their buddies? It tells me that they're pretty pathetic. So pathetic they don't have the commanding lead that they should have in the midterms in an off year election with Donald Trump as president.

When these people are scrambling to try and control Trump and friends' twitters, it comes across as either desperate or petty. Either way it's just sad. But is it as sad/pathetic as Robtard and Surtur spending every second of their miserable lives bickering over politicians that they will never meet?

Low-energy bait, Kurk.

I am curious about something Robtard. Not some weird gotcha trap or some other such bullshit but I'm genuinely curious. Do you view me as a Trump cultist?

Originally posted by Robtard
Low-energy bait, Kurk. more or less energy as Jeb Bush?

Originally posted by Kurk
more or less energy as Jeb Bush?
KEK that got a good laugh out of me

@DMB

Why didn't you major in electrical engineering? The joke is that mechanicals chose their discipline because they couldn't handle EE

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I am curious about something Robtard. Not some weird gotcha trap or some other such bullshit but I'm genuinely curious. Do you view me as a Trump cultist?

Nah, you're defo becoming more and more of a Trumper it seems. But imo, you'd still call out Trump's more shitty BS.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, you're defo becoming more and more of a Trumper it seems. But imo, you'd still call out Trump's more shitty BS.
Fair enough

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, you're defo becoming more and more of a Trumper it seems. But imo, you'd still call out Trump's more shitty BS. Back off, Jack. DMB and I are best anarcho-capitalist buddies. We will set our grand-plan into motion, and fat f*cks like you will perish in our heat.

You should be kissing our asses right now. We are your future. We are young incel males with the rage of 20 years of celibacy pent up inside us. I am fueled by my hatred of apathetic middle-aged men like yourself lacking ambition.

If you're lucky, we'll spare your miserable life and make you the court jester.

Is every teen to early 20-something edgelord saying "anarcho-capitalism" now? Weird.

Not only am I not fat, I'm in far better shape than you are and I'm old enough to be your father. So what's your excuse?

I corrected that for you:

Originally posted by Surtur
If you are in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse service, then you're a hypocrite to whine about Red Hen denying service, as Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and many other conservatives have.

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/29153247af16f826013013ef4f5b3435/5BAD1638/t51.2885-15/e35/35132904_179479169386553_4759016693898936320_n.jpg

Let's be real for a moment, first you have to get out under your mother's wing and feasting off her left titty. But I like your desperate ambition, I give you a 7.3% chance of making it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's be real for a moment, first you have to get out under your mother's wing and feasting off her left titty. But I like your desperate ambition, I give you a 7.3% chance of making it. Ahaha, Robby. I'll give you that. As much I try, insurance companies simply do not like the idea of young men trying to gain independence. I simply do not have the credit yet to feasibly afford an apartment with my part-time job. But no worries, I am a patient man and will reach salvation in time .

One great way to build credit is to start spending sensibly. Get yourself a credit card ideally with a reward system (like mileage points, case back etc) and filter all your purchases through it, just don't spent more than you can pay off at the end of the month/cycle.

It's also safer it today's age of identity theft, if someone steals money from your debit/bank card, it can take up to 30days for the bank to return your cash. If it happens through a credit card, the CC companies usually reverse the charges and give you a new card with 48hours.

Originally posted by Robtard
One great way to build credit is to start spending sensibly. Get yourself a credit card ideally with a reward system (like mileage points, case back etc) and filter all your purchases through it, just don't spent more than you can pay off at the end of the month/cycle.

It's also safer it today's age of identity theft, if someone steals money from your debit/bank card, it can take up to 30days for the bank to return your cash. If it happens through a credit card, the CC companies usually reverse the charges and give you a new card with 48hours. Oh would you look at that. Daddy Robby is trying to patronize me with basic life tips. What would I do without you .

Just friendly advice, since you mentioned not having a good enough credit history/score. Do what you will.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just friendly advice, since you mentioned not having a good enough credit history/score. Do what you will. I've already started that a few weeks ago. Thanks anyway, daddy. You should know people say that I remind them of the wolf of wallstreet in the way I carry myself. I worship the free market.

I'd keep an eye out on your 401k though. It's the newest Ponzi Scheme. Don't count on retiring any time soon .

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I corrected that for you:



https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/29153247af16f826013013ef4f5b3435/5BAD1638/t51.2885-15/e35/35132904_179479169386553_4759016693898936320_n.jpg

f*cking bingo, man. BINGO

Originally posted by Robtard
Is every teen to early 20-something edgelord saying "anarcho-capitalism" now? Weird.

Probably because one of the YouTuber celebs said it. Or someone like that.

Honestly, seems like it started on 4chan back in the mid-2000s and is probably just now getting enough traction in the last 2 years to become a meme (the way Dawkins defined "meme".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Probably because one of the YouTuber celebs said it. Or someone like that.

Honestly, seems like it started on 4chan back in the mid-2000s and is probably just now getting enough traction in the last 2 years to become a meme (the way Dawkins defined "meme". You're thinking of Stefan Molyneux

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I corrected that for you:



https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/29153247af16f826013013ef4f5b3435/5BAD1638/t51.2885-15/e35/35132904_179479169386553_4759016693898936320_n.jpg

Both are correct. If you whine about the cake thing and celebrate this you're a hypocrite.

And yes, if you are okay with the cake thing and whine about this you're a hypocrite too. Both sides are showing hypocrisy.

Weird how we haven't heard more about this on most MSM outlets:

Sarah Sanders heckled by Red Hen owner even after leaving, Mike Huckabee says

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I corrected that for you:



https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/29153247af16f826013013ef4f5b3435/5BAD1638/t51.2885-15/e35/35132904_179479169386553_4759016693898936320_n.jpg


Not to ruin the fun, but it's kind of what I do.

Is anyone caling to punish the Sanders thing, though? Force the issue?

Because on the left, we got a lawsuit, and a legal judgement. On the right, just partisan fuming.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I corrected that for you:



https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/29153247af16f826013013ef4f5b3435/5BAD1638/t51.2885-15/e35/35132904_179479169386553_4759016693898936320_n.jpg

You know, I wouldn't have cared at all about Sanders being asked to leave EXCEPT the Left demanded the Christian to bake a cake. They took it up with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who told him he couldn't make cakes for anyone and he had to provide gay-friendly "reeducation" to his employees.

Will the Red Hen be forced to stop serving everyone and be forced to provide Republican-friendly "reeducation" to their employees? Nope.

All we're doing is making the Left live to their own standard.

Adam, The Cult of Trump just proved your picture correct. ^

Originally posted by Surtur
Both are correct. If you whine about the cake thing and celebrate this you're a hypocrite.

And yes, if you are okay with the cake thing and whine about this you're a hypocrite too. Both sides are showing hypocrisy.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to ruin the fun, but it's kind of what I do.

Is anyone caling to punish the Sanders thing, though? Force the issue?

Because on the left, we got a lawsuit, and a legal judgement. On the right, just partisan fuming.

Originally posted by Playmaker
You know, I wouldn't have cared at all about Sanders being asked to leave EXCEPT the Left demanded the Christian to bake a cake. They took it up with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who told him he couldn't make cakes for anyone and he had to provide gay-friendly "reeducation" to his employees.

Will the Red Hen be forced to stop serving everyone and be forced to provide Republican-friendly "reeducation" to their employees? Nope.

All we're doing is making the Left live to their own standard.

The key difference is timing. Conservatives argued this position before the Supreme Court, so it is hypocritical for them to oppose it now. Liberals are merely accepting the standard set by that decision. This is the lay of the land now, just the way conservatives wanted.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The key difference is timing. Conservatives argued this position before the Supreme Court, so it is hypocritical for them to oppose it now. Liberals are merely accepting the standard set by that decision. This is the lay of the land now, just the way conservatives wanted.

Lol@ this clown. No it's hypocritical on both sides.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The key difference is timing. Conservatives argued this position before the Supreme Court, so it is hypocritical for them to oppose it now. Liberals are merely accepting the standard set by that decision. This is the lay of the land now, just the way conservatives wanted.

HAHAHAHHAA!! Okay. Sure.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The key difference is timing. Conservatives argued this position before the Supreme Court, so it is hypocritical for them to oppose it now. Liberals are merely accepting the standard set by that decision. This is the lay of the land now, just the way conservatives wanted.


^ Killing it with facts. Trumpers got what they wanted, now they're complaining because one of their own was the target.


"So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men." -The Captain

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol@ this clown. No it's hypocritical on both sides.

If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Killing it with facts.

Ok...BAM! FACTS!

Sanders Harrasment by Leftists Fascists. More FACTS!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Killing it with facts. Trumpers got what they wanted, now they're complaining because one of their own was the target.


"So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men." -The Captain

^Does not know what hypocrisy means

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

....where did I put that Kettle Pot Black Meme?

Probably in a Quan thread....but it DEFF FITS HERE!
Cause Adam just SHIT****POSTED a DIARRHEA Pants Load of Hypocrisy in this one.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Nah, it's hypocrisy. Do better.

Sad Part is...He can't.

Sad for Him that is.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Sad Part is...He can't.

Sad for Him that is.

I will say this: all the leftists who suddenly stopped being upset over the gay cake thing the moment the court ruled...are indeed not hypocrites if they are not upset over Sarah's treatment.

Those people are in the clear.

Stupid SCOTUS not Caving to Leftist Homosexual Political Pressure to Enforce their Fascist Dogma.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Just wait until a Muslim denies a Cult of Trump member something on these rules they wanted, they'll explode even more than they're doing right now.

Or until a liberal cultist gets denied by a muslim for a gay cake.

Originally posted by Surtur
Or until a liberal cultist gets denied by a muslim for a gay cake.

Cakes cannot be gay. Only animals can be. Try harder.

He's already at maximum trying, he can't, it's why he's been shit-posting and flopping about ever since his precious Sarah H. Sanders got told to leave an eatery.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's already at maximum trying, he can't, it's why he's been shit-posting and flopping about ever since his precious Sarah H. Sanders got told to leave an eatery.

Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing.

...that's not helping foster any type of dialogue but on division.

Originally posted by Playmaker
...that's not helping foster any type of dialogue but on division.

Didn't you just tell him to admit to something?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Didn't you just tell him to admit to something?

Because I would like to see Rob say that he thinks businesses have the right to association for any reason and shouldn't be forced to do so. That's all.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Because I would like to see Rob say that he thinks businesses have the right to association for any reason and shouldn't be forced to do so. That's all.

You mean the same guy who insulted you by calling you autistic? Yeah, good luck. But don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

Repeat: We've already moved past that, that's the standard now.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing. Originally posted by ESB -1138
You mean the same guy who insulted you by calling you autistic? Yeah, good luck. But don't hold your breath.

I see you're still massively butthurt again me. It's not good to keep that chip on your shoulder for so long.

ps I asked him if he was autistic. Seems you considering being autistic as a negative. That's on you; not mwe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: We've already moved past that, that's the standard now.

That's not you agreeing with the ruling nor is it you saying that a Christian baker should have that right. Why avoid answering a simple yes or no question?

Originally posted by Playmaker
That's not you agreeing with the ruling nor is it you saying that a Christian baker should have that right. Why avoid answering a simple yes or no question?

Told you not to hold your breath

Originally posted by Playmaker
That's not you agreeing with the ruling nor is it you saying that a Christian baker should have that right. Why avoid answering a simple yes or no question?

Actually, if I accept the standard set by a ruling, that's all that matters. I did then and I still do now.

Now can the Cult of Trump explain why it has such a problem with so-called "der Leftist!" following the new set standards because it has now affected one of their own negatively?

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, if I accept the standard set by a ruling, that's all that matters. I did then and I still do now.

Now can the Cult of Trump explain why it has such a problem with so-called "der Leftist!" following the new set standards because it has now affected one of their own negatively?

I'm not a Trump clown but what I don't want to see is a battle of zealots, it dumbs all of our discussion points down.

Once again though we are acting as if one situation was the same as the other, it wasn't.

How are they not the same?

-The cake thing happened, it was fought against and the ruling was that the baker did nothing wrong. Cool. Standard has been set hence forth. You're allowed to say "no thank you" in regards to your goods and services, regardless.

-Now SHS is told "no thank you" and the Cult of Trump has a problem with it. SHS complained, Mike Huckabee complained, Trump (our president) complained and upped it up by personal attacks against the owner and establishment. There were more.

Originally posted by Robtard
How are they not the same?

-The cake thing happened, it was fought against and the ruling was that the baker did nothing wrong. Cool. Standard has been set hence forth. You're allowed to say "no thank you" in regards to your goods and services, regardless.

-Now SHS is told "no thank you" and the Cult of Trump has a problem with it. SHS complained, Mike Huckabee complained, Trump (our president) complained and upped it up by personal attacks against the owner and establishment. There were more.

Ok, one said buy and enjoy anything from my store (except a custom cake) the other said you can't have anything from my store.

I don't really give a shit that they complained, ask me if they lost employees or business or court costs as a result that required a supreme court ruling.

You are focusing far too much on who is complaining.

You're doing a splitting hairs type of thing, man.

The pro-baker argument was that people are not entitled to the work/business of others, period. That was what was argued specifically against in the cake thread(go look). The court ruling was towards that; that's the standard now.

That happened in the bakery, just as it happened in this eatery.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're doing a splitting hairs type of thing, man.

The argument was that people are not entitled to the work/business of others, period. That was what was argued specifically against in the cake thread(go look). The court ruling was towards that.

That happened in the bakery, just as it happened in this eatery.

I'm not splitting hairs, I said earlier the owner had the right to kick her out.

You split the discussion to decide how it was different, I engaged and here we are.

One said no service the other discerned on the service they provided.

I argued that both situations are the same. Both had people denied services at the will of the establishment's owner(s).

The argument is, since the court ruling established that this behavior is legal and is the standard now, why is the Cult of Trump flipping out over SHS getting like treatment when it's what the wanted all along.

They literally won with the court decision, but now they're crying foul because one of their own was affected by it.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm not splitting hairs, I said earlier the owner had the right to kick her out.

You split the discussion to decide how it was different, I engaged and here we are.

One said no service the other discerned on the service they provided.

Don't hold you breath. Rob will jump through all kinds of loops to avoid having to hold any consistent views.

https://i.imgur.com/RdR5hhk.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
I argued that both situations are the same. Both had people denied services at the will of the establishment's owner(s).

The argument is, since the court ruling established that this behavior is legal and is the standard now, why is the Cult of Trump flipping out over SHS getting like treatment when it's what the wanted all along.

They literally won with the court decision, but now they're crying foul because one of their own was affected by it.

The bakery should never have even hit the supreme court, the ONLY reason they ruled in favor of the baker was the bias of his religion in the local government based on previous choices the council made over "biased" service.

It's not even legal now but political views don't create a protected class. It's just a ridiculous discussion because people will look for nuances in the discussion to one up. Kick her out, I really don't care. I don't want to see more moron zealots on either pursue the ridiculous agenda based on simple emotional directives they follow.

More to the point wasn't she harrassed as she left and went elsewhere? Is that the same as the bakery......nvm it wasn't.

I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.

Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The bakery should never have even hit the supreme court, the ONLY reason they ruled in favor of the baker was the bias of his religion in the local government based on previous choices the council made over "biased" service.

It's not even legal now but political views don't create a protected class. It's just a ridiculous discussion because people will look for nuances in the discussion to one up. Kick her out, I really don't care. I don't want to see more moron zealots on either pursue the ridiculous agenda based on simple emotional directives they follow.

More to the point wasn't she harrassed as she left and went elsewhere? Is that the same as the bakery......nvm it wasn't.

Disagree, there was arguments on both sides and contention, the SC came in and ruled, setting the standards which we go forward with now.

Now one of their own was told to leave and they don't like it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.

Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.

I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.

Your argument is flawed and here's why again: SHS couldn't take it to court because the SC already ruled, it happened to her after the standard was set. This is a key point with the Cult of Trump ignores.

ps You're the biggest hypocrite on KMC, it is known

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree, there was arguments on both sides and contention, the SC came in and ruled, setting the standards which we go forward with now.

Dude their ruling was so narrowly defined it should not shake up our culture in any way. They based their ruling not on the definitive case but on how the local govt had treated the baker with their language and previous rulings based on his religion.

Even Adam commented on this case, its a nothing burger. We can disagree but realize there is a difference even if you don't like that difference.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your argument is flawed and here's why again: SHS couldn't take it to court because the SC already ruled, it happened to her after the standard was set. This is a key point with the Cult of Trump ignores.

ps You're the biggest hypocrite on KMC, it is known

She certainly could have tried to take it there. Do better.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I actually agree with Rob here. Yes there are obvious differences between the baker and the Red Hen situations, but the same principle obviously applies. People who are ranting over this are basically guilty of the same thing that those the left are when they blame Trump for the same types of things/policies that Obama was guilty of.

Everyone needs to stop trying to outdo he other side when it comes to hypocrisy because even if you win... you lose.

Thanks, buddy Even if you're a crazy Chinese closet trumper

Originally posted by Surtur
I can break it down: both sides are guilty of the same thing, but only one side was so massively butthurt they took it to the supreme court.
I know and can totally understand your reasoning. But to be fair, the Right is the side that's against big government getting involved in private businesses, not the Left. It makes sense that the Left would fight tooth and nail all the way up to the Supreme Court. Fighting FOR government intervention didn't violate their core principals, seeking government intervention DOES violate the core principals of the Right.

But here's the thing, now that Dems have acknowledged the importance of precedent many of their positions are more vulnerable than ever. You know the way people mockingly say "But Obama" as a way to dismiss arguments defending Trump? Well that's not a real option anymore because if Obama and democrats set a precedent then by the same principle they can't criticize Trump and Republicans for using that precedent to their advantage.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I know and can totally understand your reasoning. But to be fair, the Right is the side that's against big government getting involved in private businesses, not the Left. It makes sense that the Left would fight tooth and nail all the way up to the Supreme Court. Fighting FOR government intervention didn't violate their core principals, seeking government intervention DOES violate the core principals of the Right.

But here's the thing, now that Dems have acknowledged the importance of precedent many of their positions are more vulnerable than ever. You know the way people mockingly say "But Obama" as a way to dismiss arguments defending Trump? Well that's not a real option anymore because if Obama and democrats set a precedent then by the same principle they can't criticize Trump and Republicans for using that precedent to their advantage.

They are vulnerable, it's why they are lashing out.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are vulnerable, it's why they are lashing out.
Yeah, especially given all the ruckus happening over the situation on the southern border. They can't criticize Trump supporters over it if they supported Obama because they set the standard.

A 51-year-old man, Reginald Scott Lee, was arrested after throwing "chicken poop" in the general direction of the Red Hen restaurant (the place that kicked Sarah Sanders out). He was arrested and charged with "littering and disorderly conduct."

So much wrong with that action. And it's disgusting. Come on. Peaceful protests are fine. Throwing chicken crap is not. I'd expect an angsty 14-year-old trying to be an edgelord to do something like this. Not a grown 51-year-old man. Pathetic.

Is only the Cult of Trump had the same "peaceful protest are fine" approach...

Originally posted by Robtard
Is only the Cult of Trump had the same "peaceful protest are fine" approach...

There's that kindergarten sloganeering.

Because "der Leftist!" remarks isn't slogan inducing, right? Anyhow.


I'm not wrong. eg Kaepernick and other players kneel both quietly and peacefully in protest; Trump uses the office of the POTUS to label them "sons of bitches" and state that they shouldn't be allowed in this country. His followers followed suite.

Worth pointing out:


It's perfectly possible the ethics boy is playing political games, but pretty pathetic from huckabee as well.

Looking at the legal side of things:


That's....not what he said:

Huckabee privately benifitting was never mentioned int he tweet. You're welcome to test whether his claim aligns with the law, but he didn't say what you said he did.

But the dipshit DID say it was like an atf agent pulling out their badge. So...

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Huckabee privately benifitting was never mentioned int he tweet. You're welcome to test whether his claim aligns with the law, but he didn't say what you said he did.

Her official govt account? You mean her Twitter account??