mmmmspooky96
freeplanetickettonorthkorea:

redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up. I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?
Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?
Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?
Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?
Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.  That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.  No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.  The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.  You wrote in your post that you linked to, “Why do you want to stop someone from getting married?"  If you can’t understand how this is not the same thing, then I can’t help you.  No, one is denying homosexuals the opportunity to get married, only the state can do that; they are merely opting out of offering their services to the event.
Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.

Couldn’t have said it better myself

freeplanetickettonorthkorea:

redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up.

I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.

I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.

Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?

Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?

Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?

Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?

Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.  That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.  No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.  The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.  You wrote in your post that you linked to, “Why do you want to stop someone from getting married?"  If you can’t understand how this is not the same thing, then I can’t help you.  No, one is denying homosexuals the opportunity to get married, only the state can do that; they are merely opting out of offering their services to the event.

Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.

Couldn’t have said it better myself

philosophicalconservatism
He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.
We must not conclude merely upon a man’s haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country.

Samuel Adams (1722 – 1803) U.S. Statesman and founding father.

In other words, do not just listen to man’s words in order to determine his  fitness for office, look at his life and his past which unlike his words do not lie.

(via philosophicalconservatism)
ch0ni

durkin62:

yea-i-guess:

spiderkiss:

poppypicklesticks:

maraudere:

Josh Thomas talks about male suicide

I wonder how feminists will react to this

Probably ignore it then go back to making male tears mugs and gifs 

Actually this is a very common idea among feminists

It’s something feminists have been talking about for years it’s called toxic masculinity and it’s one of the common threads among the topic of ‘Patriarchy hurts men too’. If fact the first time I read about toxic masculinity was on a feminist blog.

If you actually read things feminists talk about instead of straw manning them you might know this but OH WELL

durkin62

spiderkiss Have you actually seen feminists do anything to rectify this issue? Because while you may have seen “talk” I care more about actions, and feminsm has shown time and again that it does not care about violence against men or men being killed. 

Feminists against equal protection from domestic abuse. Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.Feminists stage mock murders to scare men. Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.Feminists blame males for their abuse. Feminists dismiss female child rapists.Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off. Feminists shut down a festival about gender equality for including men. Feminist Mary Koss denies male rape victims.

See also seen many feminists talk about being pro male violence, ignoring male violence, and just not giving a shit about what happens to men in general. Feminism’s quotes from prominent members. Feminist quotes on due process.Feminists being assholes. Once had a feminist tell me… Bra don’t fit? Kill all men. Baby a boy? It’s cool, just hate it. More feminists being assholes. Still more. Feminists hope MRA’s die. When your movement is literally famous for the phrase “male tears” you don’t really stand a chance to claim they care about men’s issues. 

Because what you saw from these feminists with their ideas of “toxic masculinity” And “patriarchy hurts men too”, is not them caring about male issues. What you’re seeing is an attempt by them to blame for their own issues, to absolve females from their roles in creating these issues, and to make their issues about women. Men killing themselves isn’t toxic masculinity, and I damn fucking sure don’t want suicidal men getting any “help” from any cunt who’s going to reinforce the idea that his gender is toxic. Male suicide isn’t cause by masculinity. Suicide is seen as a cowards way out, its literally anti-masculinity. Men are driven to suicide more because our society, not a patriarchy, refuses to accept the notion that men need or should get help. Women are just as much to blame for their societal double standard as men. What you’re seeing isn’t compassion from these feminists, its a desperate attempt to make sure they don’ t have to admit men have issues too, and more importantly, to make sure they don’t lose their scapepgoat. 

mmmmspooky96
kv96ic28:

Muslim husband permanently disfigures wife when his secret of three previous marriages was discovered.  The poor girl kills herself.  He is not only permitted to marry again, but the Islamic court supports his decision to disfigure and hurt his wife.  In their words, “Women are but cattle, use the bests as you desire..”
Why is the DEMOCRAT party embracing this madness?  Why is the Council of Foreign Relations headed up with an Islamic appointee by the Obama Administration.  Why is Islamic law becoming the overriding law over the Michigan state law?  Why?

kv96ic28:

Muslim husband permanently disfigures wife when his secret of three previous marriages was discovered.  The poor girl kills herself.  He is not only permitted to marry again, but the Islamic court supports his decision to disfigure and hurt his wife.  In their words, “Women are but cattle, use the bests as you desire..”

Why is the DEMOCRAT party embracing this madness?  Why is the Council of Foreign Relations headed up with an Islamic appointee by the Obama Administration.  Why is Islamic law becoming the overriding law over the Michigan state law?  Why?

mmmmspooky96

anti-communism-pro-freedom:

agentnewsbot:

Israel is the only beacon of freedom and western values in the Middle East.

Don’t be so easily fooled by circus news like RT or AlJazeera playing a civilian card (it’s an insult to IQ). Civilians die in every war and Israel does what it can to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible.

If Hamas was able to penetrate Israeli defense system, civilian/military casualty ratio on Israeli side would be 100% to 0%.

Something that most hippies protesting against Israel don’t know is the fact that Gaza government killed more Palestinians than Israel ever did. Just look at Hamas coup of 2007 and everything that followed it. Not to mention Palestinian president asking Israel’s help against Hamas before the coup.

Anyway, this is a collection of well known photos of both Israel and Palestine. They represent the majority. I’m sure you can find an Israeli kid holding a gun if you search hard enough, but I don’t care about special cases. I care about that which predominates in the particular society and culture.

Preach!