Free Speech!

[Realville]

35 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

No, I've done no such of thing.  I was ridiculing HIS point that somehow big companies have to follow laws that small companies don't.  I'm sorry if irony was lost on you.  

For the 3rd time you still have not addressed the difference between platforms and publishers an the protection that section 230 gives the big tech companies. Stop trying to come up with ridiculous analogies.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

No, I've done no such of thing.  I was ridiculing HIS point that somehow big companies have to follow laws that small companies don't.  I'm sorry if irony was lost on you.  

Sorry, nobody’s buying that.

You got caught doing your thing on a message board...no big deal.

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, Realville said:

Sole proprietorships and private companies are not the same. I’ve been a sole proprietor for 14 years. As a individual sole proprietor I would not have baked the cake either. I would not want to participate in what God said is wrong. Just wouldn’t want it on my conscience. The money is irrelevant. I’d bake them anything they wanted but not a wedding cake.
 

A sole proprietorship, also known as the sole trader, individual entrepreneurship or proprietorship, is a type of enterprise that is owned and run by one person and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business entity.

A privately held company, private company, or close corporation is a corporation that is not owned by the government,  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

and by a relatively small number of 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 or company members, which does not offer or trade its company 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 (

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

) to the general public on the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately or 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

Oh, I’m well aware of the differences between sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLPs, PCs, and LLCs.

The only problem is that the same rules apply to all businesses, regardless of ownership structure.  If it can be proven that you withheld service to someone because of their race, color, sex, etc... you’re in trouble.  The distinction is that the cake scenario was based on a person’s sexual preference (or orientation or whatever they call it these days) and that’s not a class that’s federally protected.... yet. But that is a promise that Biden had made to the LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 community. 
Trust me... refuse to serve a customer because of their race and you’ll bear the full weight of the federal government.  
 

Some people get it twisted, thinking that “you can’t refuse to serve me, I’m black (or brown... whatever)”.  Wrong. They can’t refuse to serve you because of your skin color... but they can refuse to serve you for any other reason, as long as it isn’t a reason protected by the Civil Rights Act(s). 
 

The real question is what happens when your right to practice your religion comes into conflict with another’s civil rights? We saw it a few years ago with gay marriages. Many people quit performing marriages all together so that they wouldn’t be obligated to perform same-sex marriages. 
 

Sometimes our beliefs are just behind the times. It wasn’t long ago that people were just as opposed to interracial marriages in the same way that they are opposed to gay marriages.  

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, Realville said:

For the 3rd time you still have not addressed the difference between platforms and publishers an the protection that section 230 gives the big tech companies. Stop trying to come up with ridiculous analogies.

Do you want me to discuss how that particular section was created to address online behavior in chatrooms? Because that’s what it was created for. 
Those regulations are totally outdated and practically useless. But if you want to discuss them, okay. What was your question. I don’t feel like looking back. 

[Realville]

10 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Do you want me to discuss how that particular section was created to address online behavior in chatrooms? Because that’s what it was created for. 
Those regulations are totally outdated and practically useless. But if you want to discuss them, okay. What was your question. I don’t feel like looking back. 

Big tech have become publisher’s an need  to be treated as such so they can be sued. You can slice it how you want. You’d have to be blind not to see the suppression of the conservative voice.

 

 

[Realville]

10 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Oh, I’m well aware of the differences between sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLPs, PCs, and LLCs.

The only problem is that the same rules apply to all businesses, regardless of ownership structure.  If it can be proven that you withheld service to someone because of their race, color, sex, etc... you’re in trouble.  The distinction is that the cake scenario was based on a person’s sexual preference (or orientation or whatever they call it these days) and that’s not a class that’s federally protected.... yet. But that is a promise that Biden had made to the LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 community. 
Trust me... refuse to serve a customer because of their race and you’ll bear the full weight of the federal government.  
 

Some people get it twisted, thinking that “you can’t refuse to serve me, I’m black (or brown... whatever)”.  Wrong. They can’t refuse to serve you because of your skin color... but they can refuse to serve you for any other reason, as long as it isn’t a reason protected by the Civil Rights Act(s). 
 

The real question is what happens when your right to practice your religion comes into conflict with another’s civil rights? We saw it a few years ago with gay marriages. Many people quit performing marriages all together so that they wouldn’t be obligated to perform same-sex marriages. 
 

Sometimes our beliefs are just behind the times. It wasn’t long ago that people were just as opposed to interracial marriages in the same way that they are opposed to gay marriages.  

Sorry but Gods Word is not behind the times. God’s truth is not a recommendation it is the truth period. As a Christian we can love the person without agreeing with their lifestyle. I am not aware of any Christ based religion that discriminates against the color of someone’s skin. If there is then it’s not Christ based. So you can throw that silly analogy out. 

[5GallonBucket]

Read your bible

[CardinalBacker]

47 minutes ago, Realville said:

Sorry but Gods Word is not behind the times. God’s truth is not a recommendation it is the truth period. As a Christian we can love the person without agreeing with their lifestyle. I am not aware of any Christ based religion that discriminates against the color of someone’s skin. If there is then it’s not Christ based. So you can throw that silly analogy out. 

 

50 minutes ago, Realville said:

Sorry but Gods Word is not behind the times. God’s truth is not a recommendation it is the truth period. As a Christian we can love the person without agreeing with their lifestyle. I am not aware of any Christ based religion that discriminates against the color of someone’s skin. If there is then it’s not Christ based. So you can throw that silly analogy out. 

Luke 12:47-48. 
 

Let’s hear that in a modern context. I’ll wait. 
 

[baddog]

 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, Realville said:

Big tech have become publisher’s an need  to be treated as such so they can be sued. You can slice it how you want. You’d have to be blind not to see the suppression of the conservative voice.

 

 

No, I disagree. 
 

The “owner” of a platform (say, Twitter) doesn’t provide or screen their content. On the other hand, a publisher of a newspaper DOES screen and edit the content that they put out for for the masses. Or at at least a portion of the info that’s out there. When 230 was written, there weren’t websites and pages like setxsports.com or rivals.com. Should those sites (which publish articles accompanied by comments sections) which are by definition “publishers” be responsible for the things posted in their comments sections? They are publishers, after all. 
 

More importantly, stripping big tech of their protections will lead to MORE censorship, not less. Those guys would be forced to strip anything even remotely controversial in fear of litigation. Sites like this one would vanish. The editors here wouldn’t be able to risk being punished for my postings. 
 

The question is how do we convince big tech to give both sides a voice, not just the lefties? Twitter hasn’t bounced back from their losses on Monday. I’m thinking that there needs to be a rush of people going to their investment firms that handle their retirement accounts and demanding to be invested in funds that DONT include Apple/Google/Amazon/Twitter.  Be willing to take the hit for dumping their stock now, but it only works if we all do it, combined with a complete deleting of accounts by angry users. A drop in users combined with a drop in stock price might force those guys to rethink their business plans. Once we start the downward push on their stock prices, others who aren’t affected by their censorship will also bail... because it’s no longer a good investment. 
The real threat is antitrust penalties, up to and including government forced breakups of the giants. I think the fear of that is what kept them kinda honest (or at least pretending to be) up until we lost the Senate last week. THAT’S what led to their actions last week, not the riots. What they did to Parler is reason enough to bust ‘em up, but nobody in power has a problem with it right now because they’re doing the work of the Left. 
 

in my opinion, of course. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 minute ago, CardinalBacker said:

No, I disagree. 
 

The “owner” of a platform (say, Twitter) doesn’t provide or screen their content. On the other hand, a publisher of a newspaper DOES screen and edit the content that they put out for for the masses. Or at at least a portion of the info that’s out there. When 230 was written, there weren’t websites and pages like setxsports.com or rivals.com. Should those sites (which publish articles accompanied by comments sections) which are by definition “publishers” be responsible for the things posted in their comments sections? They are publishers, after all. 
 

More importantly, stripping big tech of their protections will lead to MORE censorship, not less. Those guys would be forced to strip anything even remotely controversial in fear of litigation. Sites like this one would vanish. The editors here wouldn’t be able to risk being punished for my postings. 
 

The question is how do we convince big tech to give both sides a voice, not just the lefties? Twitter hasn’t bounced back from their losses on Monday. I’m thinking that there needs to be a rush of people going to their investment firms that handle their retirement accounts and demanding to be invested in funds that DONT include Apple/Google/Amazon/Twitter.  Be willing to take the hit for dumping their stock now, but it only works if we all do it, combined with a complete deleting of accounts by angry users. A drop in users combined with a drop in stock price might force those guys to rethink their business plans. Once we start the downward push on their stock prices, others who aren’t affected by their censorship will also bail... because it’s no longer a good investment. 
The real threat is antitrust penalties, up to and including government forced breakups of the giants. I think the fear of that is what kept them kinda honest (or at least pretending to be) up until we lost the Senate last week. THAT’S what led to their actions last week, not the riots. What they did to Parler is reason enough to bust ‘em up, but nobody in power has a problem with it right now because they’re doing the work of the Left. 
 

in my opinion, of course. 

I can’t believe that no one has announced a mutual fund that won’t include tech stocks. They’d be flooded with with willing investors, I believe. 
 

Maybe they have and it’s all been censored. 
 

😂🤣

[Realville]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

 

Luke 12:47-48. 
 

Let’s hear that in a modern context. I’ll wait. 
 

I not going to argue with you about the Truth of Gods word. Truth defends itself. Argue with God about it an see what he says. 

[CardinalBacker]

11 minutes ago, Realville said:

I not going to argue with you about the Truth of Gods word. Truth defends itself. Argue with God about it an see what he says. 

You were the one that said “God’s word is not behind the times.”

I would just like to know how to apply that passage in modern times.  I know that there’s an argument to be made about the Old Testament not applying under the new covenant, but I think Luke is in the New Testament, is it not. 

It’s somewhere before “One Corinthians” as Trump calls it.  

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

 

Luke 12:47-48. 
 

Let’s hear that in a modern context. I’ll wait. 
 

There is excellent commentary about this out there, but you already know that.  

I normally apply Proverbs 26:4-5 in situations like this.

[CardinalBacker]

18 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There is excellent commentary about this out there, but you already know that.  

I normally apply Proverbs 26:4-5 in situations like this.

My point is this. If you were raised in a church-going family in Southeast Texas in the 60s and 70s, you were taught that interracial relationships were sinful in the eyes of God, most likely. They used the admonition in the scripture about being “unequally yoked” as the basis for this teaching. I only know of a few churches that still feel this way in 2021... but they exist. Most of us have long since decided that those relationships should not be illegal, aren’t immoral, and even if some find them distasteful, that’s about it. What changed? Did the Word of God change? I don’t think so. 
 

Gay marriages or whatever will be looked at the same way in time. Who can justify refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple? None of us, I’m sure. But some of us will stand firm upon our religious beliefs and refuse to bake one for a gay couple. Really? Do you also refuse to bake them for people who are getting married for the second time? Do you ask them if they had an annulment of their first marriage, or if there were Biblical grounds for their first divorce? Nope. You’re just a homophobe and trying to find a Biblical basis for not baking their cake. 
 

But I do believe that homosexuality is sinful. My beliefs are all over the place. 

[stevenash]

If it becomes "normal" for a man to marry his horse, will the government insist that you cannot deny to bake him a wedding cake?

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

If it becomes "normal" for a man to marry his horse, will the government insist that you cannot deny to bake him a wedding cake?

Once they become protected, yes....

[stevenash]

WIll they then tear down statues of people from days gone by who didnt believe in men marrying horses?

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, stevenash said:

WIll they then tear down statues of people from days gone by who didnt believe in men marrying horses?

I'm afraid all of those old statues will be gone before that.

[SmashMouth]

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

My point is this. If you were raised in a church-going family in Southeast Texas in the 60s and 70s, you were taught that interracial relationships were sinful in the eyes of God, most likely.

Dude...are you kidding me?

[CardinalBacker]

17 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Dude...are you kidding me?

Not at all.

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Not at all.

Well, I went to church at St. James Episcopal Church in Beaumont from the early 70’s til about 1980 or so - nearly a decade - and that topic never came up. 

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Well, I went to church at St. James Episcopal Church in Beaumont from the early 70’s til about 1980 or so - nearly a decade - and that topic never came up. 

Do tell... that’s what we heard. Later on I was told that passage referred to marrying outside of your religious beliefs. I guess it’s open to interpretation. 
 

I’m aware of a church in the area that is still homogenous (not that surprising, there are all black churches, too) and I spoke with a church member that told me they still felt that way. She was confident that pastor would probably counsel any interracial or gay couple that visited and wish them the best elsewhere. 

Same thing for a couple that was unmarried and living together. 
 

They old school. 

[SmashMouth]

Just now, CardinalBacker said:

Do tell... that’s what we heard. Later on I was told that passage referred to marrying outside of your religious beliefs. I guess it’s open to interpretation. 
 

I’m aware of a church in the area that is still homogenous (not that surprising, there are all black churches, too) and I spoke with a church member that told me they still felt that way. She was confident that pastor would probably counsel any interracial or gay couple that visited and wish them the best elsewhere. 

Same thing for a couple that was unmarried and living together. 
 

They old school. 

No doubt in some of the snake churches that’s still taught to this day. I visited other churches with friends occasionally but by all means I was usually at our “family” church. It never ever came up. I guess it depends on where you attended. 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Do tell... that’s what we heard. Later on I was told that passage referred to marrying outside of your religious beliefs. I guess it’s open to interpretation. 
 

I’m aware of a church in the area that is still homogenous (not that surprising, there are all black churches, too) and I spoke with a church member that told me they still felt that way. She was confident that pastor would probably counsel any interracial or gay couple that visited and wish them the best elsewhere. 

Same thing for a couple that was unmarried and living together. 
 

They old school. 

That ain’t old school, that’s racist.  The scripture you posted from Luke would directly apply to this “preacher.”