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.

 

Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

A religious belief that can't even be proven is different than an actual physical threat to someone.


Oh, Trump directly threatened someone by name?


Not by name, but by religion, race, and gender.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

refusing sanctuary to refugees


Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could.

Trump doesn't want to allow illegal immigrants protection FROM laws ... so he is a threat. Being a threat to your political views is not waving a gun around.

Hilarious how you prove my point so well.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

A religious belief that can't even be proven is different than an actual physical threat to someone.


Oh, Trump directly threatened someone by name?


Not by name, but by religion, race, and gender.

What terrible things has trump promised to do to women once elected?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

A religious belief that can't even be proven is different than an actual physical threat to someone.


Oh, Trump directly threatened someone by name?


Not by name, but by religion, race, and gender.


So people are no longer individuals but they are just faceless herds of identity groups?

What a horrid life you must lead on the left.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Apparently there is a great deal of confusion here. Let's see if this helps sort matters out...

So it is okay to force a Muslim to prepare a pork dinner, but it's not okay to force an entertainer to perform for a politician she doesn't like?

Right...okay, got it!

No double standard there at all!

Hypocrisy!

Mind = Blown.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The answer is because something like 95% of humans are completely and hypocritically retarded.

I think it used to be reffered to as "Do as I say, not as I do."

Now remember, your freedom of speech matters as long as you say what I want to hear.


Welcome to the world we created. Check your brains at the door and come in with your self righteous outrage and feels.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That's a load of biased crap. This continually is based off Conservatives lack of ability to understand law.

If you remember correctly back when they gay cake thing blew up social media, a common argument from 'my' side was if you don't want to serve the public then you should not operate as a public business, become a private club or private contractor. That is what entertainers are.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75

It's not my opinion. It's his own words.

"I love the idea of stop and frisk; It worked great in New York (where it was stopped because it became racial profiling)"


Do you like crime? The fact is, stop and frisk reduced crime in NYC by 65%, turning one of the most dangerous cities in the world into one of the safest.


"We need to ban all Muslims from coming to this country"


"... until we figure out what's going on."

Consistently leaving that part out is a clear indication of cognitive dissonance.


"Yes, I think there should be some punishment for women who have abortions"


If the fetus doesn't pose a serious and immediate danger to the woman's life, then I agree... harsh punishment in fact.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They are also employers who hire non-nun people, correct?

Last I heard, they were allowed to be exempt, they just needed to sign a form, which would allow their non-nun employees to get contraceptives from other types of insurance not sponsored by the nuns. They refused to sign this form because they want to force their non-nun employees to not be able to get contraceptives by any insurance.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No dice.

The Rockettes are contractually obligated to perform, and they are being let out of the performance despite the contract over their moral objections.

This is still a valid comparison.

The Rockettes took the performance and the full-time performers are obligated by contract to appear and dance.

Do you think they should be allowed to opt out of contractual obligations over moral objections?

If so, you are a hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well that particular quote was in reference to him banning all Muslims. That would include Muslim refugees, no?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

So again, to my argument...

If you run a Halal restaurant and are a Muslim, you should MUST serve pork...or you shouldn't be running a public restaurant, right?

NO???? Why not?

Nope, no hypocrisy there! None at all!



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

A religious belief that can't even be proven is different than an actual physical threat to someone.


Oh, Trump directly threatened someone by name?


Not by name, but by religion, race, and gender.


So people are no longer individuals but they are just faceless herds of identity groups?

What a horrid life you must lead on the left.


All the people in those groups have names. They are all individuals.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well that particular quote was in reference to him banning all Muslims. That would include Muslim refugees, no?


Well, let's go back to earlier in the thread.

You agreed that we should keep out Muslim radicals who would do bad things.

So I asked you how we tell them apart when there is no paper trail. I don't see an answer as of yet.

Basically, Europe followed the benefit of the doubt approach and let them all in, and we can see where that has gotten them, so I'd rather we don't do that. Maybe we should establish safe zones in other countries ... say, Middle Eastern countries for the refugees until we can figure out how to establish who's who, and then we can think about whom to bring to our country.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

A religious belief that can't even be proven is different than an actual physical threat to someone.


Oh, Trump directly threatened someone by name?


Not by name, but by religion, race, and gender.


So people are no longer individuals but they are just faceless herds of identity groups?

What a horrid life you must lead on the left.


All the people in those groups have names. They are all individuals.


Clearly not if they all take a general statement as a personal threat.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Kali74

So again, to my argument...

If you run a Halal restaurant and are a Muslim, you should MUST serve pork...or you shouldn't be running a public restaurant, right?

NO???? Why not?

Nope, no hypocrisy there! None at all!




Good point.
I wonder if they allow seeing eye dogs in their places?
Dogs are haram as far as I know.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ElGoobero



the left / media mercilessly condemned them and wanted them punished.

Well actually the left wanted the law to be followed. The right however was as usual throwing the Constitution under the bus because it doesn't allow people to be forced to follow some religious dogma.


so why is it wrong for a baker or pizza maker to deny service according to their moral/religious code, but perfectly acceptable for an entertainer to refuse to perform?

Because the ignorant bakers cried it was their religion that stopped them from serving gays. The singer is smart enough to not say it's her religion keeping her from performing.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Kali74

So again, to my argument...

If you run a Halal restaurant and are a Muslim, you should MUST serve pork...or you shouldn't be running a public restaurant, right?

NO???? Why not?

Nope, no hypocrisy there! None at all!





If you are a member of a protected class or group then these rules do not apply......



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If a baker's religion doesn't allow him to bake cakes, then he shouldn't be in the cake-making business. If they choose to be in the cake-making business, then they should make cakes.

If a Muslim's religion doesn't allow him to cook and serve pork, then he shouldn't be in the bacon-selling business. If they choose to be in the bacon-selling business, then they should cook pork.

How hard is that?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
They do it because they are easily led by the media, who have taught them well. It's not unlike the beliefs one garners from a church.

But if refusing to participate in an event for moral reasons is protected for these anti-trumpers, and not Christians, then something needs to change.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join