It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Selective Bigotry

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Your first example is untrue:


Example: A court awarded a lesbian couple a ruling of $135,000 dollars because a baker wouldn't make them a cake for their wedding. The money is for their mental pain and suffering because they couldn't get THAT cake from THAT baker. The baker didn't make the cake because it was against his religious beliefs. Making the cake would have caused him mental pain and suffering. Some of you support the lesbians and the verdict...which means you don't give the baker the same level of fairness or equality. That makes you a bigot.


The couple was awarded 135k because the bakery owners kept giving out their private information which lead to death threats against the couple and in turn jeopardized the adoption of children they were in the process of.

Furthermore... public accommodation. Learn about it, save yourself some typing in the future.

Personally I still think Eric Brown was murdered. I don't advocate property destruction but I'm not willing to blanket the entire black community as rioters because a few (maybe even cops) got destructive and they had every right to protest.

I support amnesty because US foreign policy especially with most of our nearest neighbors is horrific (not being melodramatic, it really is), and not nearly enough Americans call our government out on it or factor it into any voting equations. Further, I'm pretty sure that being an illegal immigrant is the only criteria for a murder or rapist.

So am I a bigot now?


Too much to address here but I'll quickly try.

1. The verdict was for not making the cake.
2. Your opinion doesn't matter. The trial proved differently.
3. If you wish to support criminals, that is your choice. And if you don't realize illegals that shouldn't have been here in the first place actually do commit crimes...there is no arguing with you.




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

And on your "Am I a bigot" comment. Not from your post. You simply have a different opinion. If you had chosen to hate someone because of your opinion, then you may have been a bigot.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

where would the surprise be if i told you

Bomb squad it is. But thanks anyway



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
I have a form of bigotry that spans all races, religions, sexes and ethnic backgrounds . I am very very anti-stupid !!!!

Make it a religion and I'll join you on Sunday



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The Derpy Notion of Defining Tolerance v ia Bigot's Rights

"Yes. You have to change if you are a bigot if you want in on being "tolerated".

No. You are not "intolerant" if you won't accept bigots or bigotry-related concern trolling or apologia about what is truly tolerant and what is not when you meet hate. That ship has sailed."



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

"I don't see anyone that hates all cops, just see a trend in police changing from a role of Officer of the Peace to aggressive Law Enforcement Officer."

I see it a bit differently. Yes...there are bad cops. However...if a citizen doing something wrong, stops when a cop says "Hey..cut it out". And they respond "Yes sir.", there usually isn't a problem. When a cop has to deal with someone violent who fights them, trying to keep them from doing their job...different story.

Maybe it isn't the police that have decided to be more violent, maybe it is the asses committing the crimes that have gotten more violent and the cops just have to fight fire with fire.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. If you hate someone because they oppose your opinion that they shouldn't hate someone else for their opinion...you both are haters. Your opinion isn't more right or more wrong than theirs. Even if the majority agrees with you...it doesn't make you right. It just makes you part of the majority, which isn't always right.
edit on 7/10/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

The verdict was yes but the payout was much higher because of the behavior of the bakery owners after the coupe filed the discrimination complaint.


The bureau found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”


Raw Story

Also this:


From the Final Order:
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every
person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The
ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”


Link



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: reldra

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. If you hate someone because they oppose your opinion that they shouldn't hate someone else for their opinion...you both are haters. Your opinion isn't more right or more wrong than theirs. Even if the majority agrees with you...it doesn't make you right. It just makes you part of the majority, which isn't always right.


Absolutely not. I don't hate anyone, nor have I ever been a bigot. Not tolerating bigots cannot make me a bigot. That is a false argument.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

The verdict was yes but the payout was much higher because of the behavior of the bakery owners after the coupe filed the discrimination complaint.


The bureau found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”


Raw Story

Also this:


From the Final Order:
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every
person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The
ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”


Link

You are correct on the amount...not the verdict. I included the amount for reference. The verdict as you quoted was "“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation."

Therefore, my argument still holds. It isn't fair to give one group the right to fight for their beliefs and take it away from another. That isn't fair nor justice. Otherwise, if a skinhead wanted a jewish baker to make him a cake with a swastika and the baker refused...that would be the same verdict.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: reldra

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. If you hate someone because they oppose your opinion that they shouldn't hate someone else for their opinion...you both are haters. Your opinion isn't more right or more wrong than theirs. Even if the majority agrees with you...it doesn't make you right. It just makes you part of the majority, which isn't always right.


Absolutely not. I don't hate anyone, nor have I ever been a bigot. Not tolerating bigots cannot make me a bigot. That is a false argument.

Ummm...the "you" in there meant "anyone". I don't know YOU and therefore wasn't talking about YOU.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: reldra

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. If you hate someone because they oppose your opinion that they shouldn't hate someone else for their opinion...you both are haters. Your opinion isn't more right or more wrong than theirs. Even if the majority agrees with you...it doesn't make you right. It just makes you part of the majority, which isn't always right.


Absolutely not. I don't hate anyone, nor have I ever been a bigot. Not tolerating bigots cannot make me a bigot. That is a false argument.

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Yes...you can be a bigot of a bigot.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually it is fair. A business open to the public is aware of what is required of them when they apply for their business license.

ETA: Writing on a cake (including symbols) is not covered by discrimination laws or public accommodation laws. A baker that refuses to put swastikas on a cake wouldn't put swastika's on a cake for anyone.
edit on 7/10/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: reldra

"I don't see anyone that hates all cops, just see a trend in police changing from a role of Officer of the Peace to aggressive Law Enforcement Officer."

I see it a bit differently. Yes...there are bad cops. However...if a citizen doing something wrong, stops when a cop says "Hey..cut it out". And they respond "Yes sir.", there usually isn't a problem. When a cop has to deal with someone violent who fights them, trying to keep them from doing their job...different story.

Maybe it isn't the police that have decided to be more violent, maybe it is the asses committing the crimes that have gotten more violent and the cops just have to fight fire with fire.


No and we see time after time unprovoked violence from police. Police are trained to specifically keep the peace. A citizen, normally feels threatened or nervous by police interest. Some have studied the law and know they don;t have to give their name, ID or allow a search right off the bat. This makes police mad. Look at that word 'normally'. It is normal now, it was not normal at some point. People trusted their neighborhood 'cops on the beat'.

I have a personal example. I live in a wealthy neighborhood. I sometimes rent out a room in my home. About 7 years ago I rented to a young man with great references and a clean background check. However, he was stealing motorcycles and writing bad checks. No one knew this. Not his family, his friends, nor his employer. I certainly didn;t know this until 2 detectives knocked on my door. The border was not at home. The police asked to come in, I said 'not without a warrant'. They questioned me about a fake, plastic, Harriet Carter surveilance camera I have above my door. They grew belligerent, demanding to know if the camera was connected to a computer, though I stated it was not. They said "if we have to go and get a warrant we will be angry when we come back".

I was terrified, but my mother is an attorney, I knew what to do and I stood my ground. No wonder people become defensive when they come into contact with police.

And now, they have shot and killed a child with a toy gun. They shoot people's dogs. They shoot men in the back who run.

I am certainly awake. My eyes and ears are wide open.
edit on 10-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
YOU pretend you are better than them. So maybe that makes you worse.

I know there are some racists among us, some anti-gay people among us and so forth. These are the fringe. These are the few and the mostly isolated. However...I remember larger figures from history that USED prejudice to their advantage just as you have. Hitler, Stalin, Manson and more. Just like them, you choose who you hate and give everyone else a pass and then pretend you are right. You're not...you're a bigot.


Jesus man, who are you talking to when people here go to great lengths to establish at least some factuals. You don't mish mash things together as if. Sure nobody always get's thing right, in the same way that people don't always get things wrong. Feck it, what's with this psyops intelligence post. I know about the examples you give, and are about the worst examples for defining bigotry about anything as such.
edit on 10-7-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually it is fair. A business open to the public is aware of what is required of them when they apply for their business license.

You are arguing a whole subject of a particular situation. I'm not debating the case. All I am pointing out and here to debate is what I've stated. There are people here that will support one opinion and call others bigots for supporting a different opinion. Thus making themselves bigots.

In this particular case, it is unfair to require one couple to do something that causes both couples the same damage. Feel free to argue the baker/lesbian case with someone else. If you wish to debate that it is fair and equal that you have to do something for me that I don't have to do for you...feel free.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

You are...of course...welcome to your opinion. I stand behind them.
edit on 7/10/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)


PS: And after re-reading your post...I think you misunderstand whose bigotry I'm talking about. It is not the bigotry in the case, it is the people on ATS calling others on ATS bigots.
edit on 7/10/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

sounds just like em
"we wont be happy if we come back with a warrant"

hahahahahahha

then dont come back asshole

ya know?

always try to brace people and make em feel like they have to bow down



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually it is fair. A business open to the public is aware of what is required of them when they apply for their business license.

You are arguing a whole subject of a particular situation. I'm not debating the case. All I am pointing out and here to debate is what I've stated. There are people here that will support one opinion and call others bigots for supporting a different opinion. Thus making themselves bigots.

In this particular case, it is unfair to require one couple to do something that causes both couples the same damage. Feel free to argue the baker/lesbian case with someone else. If you wish to debate that it is fair and equal that you have to do something for me that I don't have to do for you...feel free.


If you openly defame a minority, you are a bigot. You will get some backlash and the backlash is not bigotry.

The baker did business in a state they were aware had that law. They knew it and opened up a business anyway. Then they go ahead and break the law in regard to doing business there. So they pay. Apparently they did more than just break that law, they were culpable of punitive behavior, so they pay more.
edit on 10-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You introduced the example as an example of bigotry. Maybe if you understood situations better you wouldn't be so offended and angry all the time.




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join