this shit always amazes me. like, at least have the fortitude to follow through on what you're saying and explain the underlying principle. how do you just go limp wrist like that live on camera. I will just truly never understand.
-
-
If you're ballsy, you could argue that the cure to segregation was worse than the disease, as Blacks no longer needed to build strong communities with autonomous bussnesses and rely on their family to get by, but that's less applicable to the h*mo.
-
Yeah I figured that one, but he would never do that, only Thomas sowell is allowed to make that argument lol
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well it's comparing apples and oranges. The law is already settled on not being able to discriminate based on certain traits of someone (sex, gender, orientation, etc.)The cake controversy was about forcing artists to portray *content* they morally disagree with
-
In other words, the refusal can't be on iota about *who* the person is, must be about a sincerely held religious objection to content the customer wants.
-
That's the fundamental argument the SCOTUS ultimately punted on. They ruled in favor of the baker not because the case decisively said you could discriminate based on requested content, but because his sincerely held beliefs weren't considered in good faith during the hearings
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He could talk about the real history of the civil rights movement and how it was a globalist scam movement just like all of these modern fake integration movements such as affirmative action etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
eterson have done to win that argument???