• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?


  • Total voters
    36
lol make it bigger next time with colors it wont change anything

you made a statement, i pointed out the fact that it was an opinion, then i asked you the question, thats how it works. Dont like it? move along lol ill repeat it one last time.

law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence all disagree, what "facts" are you basing this opinion on?

an exercisable right is a right a person chooses to exercise.

i can choose to:

bare a firearm, or not.

pray or not

protest of not

assembly or not

use my freedom of speech or not.

its my choice.

when your on another persons property, you do not have any exercisable rights......you cannot exercise free speech, pray, assemble, protest , bare a firearm, becuase it is not your property, you must get permission from the owner to engage in any of these rights.

the USSC has NEVER RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO BE SERVICED.

constitutional law: 14th amendment--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

MY state constitution -- 36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition

Section 36. A. This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

B. This section does not:

1. Prohibit bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

2. Prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal monies to this state.

3. Invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

C. The remedies available for a violation of this section are the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, as are otherwise available for a violation of the existing antidiscrimination laws of this state.

D. This section applies only to actions that are taken after the effective date of this section.

E. This section is self-executing.

F. For the purposes of this section, "state" includes this state, a city, town or county, a public university, including the university of Arizona, Arizona state university and northern Arizona university, a community college district, a school district, a special district or any other political subdivision in this state.


no where does it say a citizen or a business cannot discriminate......this from two constitutions.


name for me a right which you can exercise on another person's property?
 
Let's start with the federal public accommodations non-discrimination law, which is 42 U.S.C. 2000a of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. .....is U.S. CODE. IT IS STATUTORY LAW

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.


13th amendment--Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
an exercisable right is a right a person chooses to exercise.

i can choose to:

bare a firearm, or not.

pray or not

protest of not

assembly or not

use my freedom of speech or not.

its my choice.

when your on another persons property, you do not have any exercisable rights......you cannot exercise free speech, pray, assemble, protest , bare a firearm, becuase it is not your property, you must get persiion from the ower to egage in any of these rights.

the USSC has NEVER RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO BE SERVICED.

constitutional law: 14th amendment--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

MY state constitution -- 36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition

Section 36. A. This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

B. This section does not:

1. Prohibit bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

2. Prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal monies to this state.

3. Invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

C. The remedies available for a violation of this section are the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, as are otherwise available for a violation of the existing antidiscrimination laws of this state.

D. This section applies only to actions that are taken after the effective date of this section.

E. This section is self-executing.

F. For the purposes of this section, "state" includes this state, a city, town or county, a public university, including the university of Arizona, Arizona state university and northern Arizona university, a community college district, a school district, a special district or any other political subdivision in this state.


no where does it say a citizen or a business cannot discriminate......this from two constitutions.


name for me a right which you can exercise on another person's property?

so your answer is NO, you do not have any FACTS that make your statement anything more than opinion

so what you just did is post some general info that is known, then you access from it based off your SUBJECTIVE OPINION that your statement is fact.
But theres nothign in your post that makes your statement fact, its your subjective opinion.

Thats not what i asked you, i didnt ask you to give me your opinions to support your statement, i want facts.

people on this same topic in other threads quote things in law and then they say in their OPINION this is a violation of freedom of religion BUT they have no FACTS to prove that. This is all you just did.

When you can id like FACTS please. Please provide the facts that make your statement 100% true.

Until you can answer this question theres nothing to discuss. Law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence, even this ruling all disagree with your opinion but if you can actually come up with some thats when ill reply. good luck!
 
public accommodations covers that, while i already knew that, i looked up some info real quick for just an FYI

What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?


Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.

What is a “place of public accommodation”?

A public accommodation is any place of
business engaged in offering sales or
services of any kind to the public, as well
as any place offering facilities, privileges,
advantages or other accommodations to
the public. Typical examples of public
accommodations include, but are not
limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.


2.) i understand but the question is about law and facts vs the rulling fyi

As a question of law and fact, obviously it was a correct ruling if such a law applies to commerce to the public. A judge, of course, can decide a law is unconstitutional, but trial judges rarely do.

Where it gets sticky is when you get to area of private clubs and organizations that are not entirely public. And as an ethical question, not legal question. I'm looking it as a question of ethics/morality, and why I gave that example. COULD hotels all put up signs saying "NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED!"
No, that would be unethical/wrong.
Could a hotel say, " WE HAVE A POOL BAR AREA EXCLUSIVELY FOR GAY WOMEN"?
I think so, because that actually is about the sexuality itself in real terms.

"Sexual orientation" is different than race, because it also involved actions. Same with religion. So I have no problem with the judge popping that business - because it was the owner saying "I won't do business with gays because they are gay." I could see a cake maker refusing to put the symbol of a religion the owner doesn't agree with IF his/her religion says that would be a sin or sacrilege.

The hotel I gave had that coded rule not because they won't do business with heterosexuals because they are heterosexuals or with men because they are men. Rather, because their hotel is more a club for gay women around romance and intimacy for gay women. She gave us a room at a far corner that had a direct locked entrance to the street (all the hotel rooms have doors only to the interior of the entirely shielded little hotel.

Other than respecting the restricted pool area (she had only asked that I don't go in that area being a guy), we did walk about the hotel and even ate breakfast in the little dining room. I was the only guy. Only one dike raised a fuss for a moment, but the other women told her to knock it off and apologized for her.

It is unfortunate that hard laws and rules have to be passed, rather than people just acting decent towards each other.
 
Last edited:
Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

Yes
No
I love mashed potatoes
View attachment 67158094

Now let me be clear what Im asking. The fact is we have national equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws. Then on top of that states, counties, cities, towns, corporations and many orgs have minimum these same laws/rules/ordinances and policies but also expand them in different ways.

Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

With these laws and protections of rights factually in place for all the other categories and factually in place in Colorado did the judge rule properly?

If you think all equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist, this ain’t the thread for you because that isn’t the topic.;)
I want to know if people think the judge made the right ruling based on facts and law.

We can discuss if you think orientation should be grouped with the others though.

Here’s some quotes from his ruling.:
I haven’t found the whole ruling yet, id really like to read it if anybody has it please post it and or let me know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote."

The order says the cake-maker mustcease and desist from discriminatingagainst gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.Judge Spencer shot down the constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. "Conceptually, refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage," wrote Judge Spencer.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for me this is pretty easy,this is about illegal discrimination and violating rights and nothing else.

Its factual a matter of civil/legal/equal rights as supported by law, rights, court cases, court precedence, constitutions and even the ruling above vs illegal discrimination.

In the public realm we all have laws and rules we must follow, we all have rights, and they are the same for ALL OF US. Nobody gets special treatment nobody gets to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.

The owner CHOSE to get a business license and agree to its terms and follow the rules and laws that come with that.
The owner CHOSE to commit a crime and break law and he had to face the consequences of that.

In reality he actually got off light, he broke the law and violated the rights of others and was simply given a cease and desist order to not longer break the law and illegal discriminate.

Now he was asked if he would be willing to go to jail over this and he said “You know if that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” well, happy trails Jack because that’s is where criminals tend to end up when they get caught breaking the law.

Sorry he is entitled to his opinion but as a Christian myself I see zero logic in breaking the law and zero wrong with selling cake to gays, theres nothing sinful about that. This is simply very stupid and poor foresight and Jack has nobody to blame but himself.

It actually blows my mind that SOME of the same people that don’t accept religion as a reason to break the law, illegally discriminate and violate equal rights some how magically think its ok when it comes to "queers faggots and dykes” treat them as a lesser and give them the same rights we all have or at least protect them. How absurd, and severely transparent those particular people are.

Links:
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
Cake Shop Owner Tells Fox News He
It Was Never About the Cake | Deborah Munn
Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress

The judge ruled according to the law as written. But the law in general doesn't mesh with the ideals of rights, liberties, and a restricted government. No one is entitled to the property or labor of others.
 
so your answer is NO, you do not have any FACTS that make your statement anything more than opinion

so what you just did is post some general info that is known, then you access from it based off your SUBJECTIVE OPINION that your statement is fact.
But theres nothign in your post that makes your statement fact, its your subjective opinion.

Thats not what i asked you, i didnt ask you to give me your opinions to support your statement, i want facts.

people on this same topic in other threads quote things in law and then they say in their OPINION this is a violation of freedom of religion BUT they have no FACTS to prove that. This is all you just did.

When you can id like FACTS please. Please provide the facts that make your statement 100% true.

Until you can answer this question theres nothing to discuss. Law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence, even this ruling all disagree with your opinion but if you can actually come up with some thats when ill reply. good luck!

sorry, its not my answer, it would be your answer, and your saying ...no.

can you tell me, how then a person makes a claim on a business for not serving them,..... since there is no rights violation?
 
1.)As a question of law and fact, obviously it was a correct ruling if such a law applies to commerce to the public. A judge, of course, can decide a law is unconstitutional, but trial judges rarely do.

2.) Where it gets sticky is when you get to area of private clubs and organizations that are not entirely public.

3.) And as an ethical question, not legal question. I'm looking it as a question of ethics/morality, and why I gave that example. COULD hotels all put up signs saying "NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED!"
No, that would be unethical/wrong.

4.) Could a hotel say, " WE HAVE A POOL BAR AREA EXCLUSIVELY FOR GAY WOMEN"?
I think so, because that actually is about the sexuality itself in real terms.

5.)It is unfortunate that hard laws and rules have to be passed, rather than people just acting decent towards each other.

1.) correct

2.) a private club and non public doesnt have to abide by this of course. So theres no tricky thats just the way it is, now of course it could get tricky if this provate club plays in the grey area or becomes very inconsistent than cases may spring up but they arent going to have much meat with them.

3.) legality aside i agree

4.) i dont agree with this even without law, now of course if theres nudity etc they would have to explain that, no minors, no males (can get away with this like a locker room or bathroom) but to deny people on sexual orientation wouldn't float with me IMO

5.) exactly
 
The judge ruled according to the law as written. But the law in general doesn't mesh with the ideals of rights, liberties, and a restricted government. No one is entitled to the property or labor of others.

Well no one has to accept a business license from the state either. But if they do, they have to abide by its terms.
 
Meh, slightly dishonest as it twists the context of my post, but whatever.

nope not at all, i thanked you and said correct for the correct parts and parts i was thank you for. Basic honesty at its finest.

The contents and context i was referring and replied to remained 100% in tact.

The rest i haev no interest in as pointed out in the op nor did i address.
 
4.) i dont agree with this even without law, now of course if theres nudity etc they would have to explain that, no minors, no males (can get away with this like a locker room or bathroom) but to deny people on sexual orientation wouldn't float with me IMO

That's where, in reality, there are problems that gays face that others do not, so I suppose it's bending rules.
Can gays have a place where they can gather a romantic setting without having people sneering, gawking and pointing at them calling the freaks and have some Bible beater who rented a room quoting Bible at them (ie exercising free speech?)
Many cities and areas now, of course, have many places for gays and many communities are now gay tolerant or just so familiar with it that it isn't shocking. But some are not.
Key West is known to be VERY sexually liberated beyond most of the USA. They have a nude parade once a year, for example. And they are in the heart of Bible beaters and rightwingers too. All cultures meet there - and could clash.
So it gets to be a sticky topic. Can a business be a business for gay activities, where it known this means intimacy, and exclude heterosexuals?
Well, the law also prohibits gender discrimination, but most restrooms do. Could a business have a nudist pool ONLY for women or ONLY for men? I think the law says no. Should it really? Maybe it just has to. But, in real terms, that means that hotel's pool area and overall the hotel for gays basically couldn't exist, and thus such a vacation romantic opportunity and socializing couldn't exist either.

But, then, doesn't THAT just make another discrimination? If the state doesn't have gay marriage, and Florida doesn't, it actually makes a discrimination as it is NOT illegal to have "married only" activities as marital status isn't an item of discrimination. SO... in effect, a hotel COULD have a heterosexuals only rule by having a "married only" rule, right? But no gay couples only rule.

Legislating non-discrimination isn't always as easy as it sounds, and can have unintended consequences that discriminate.
 
Well no one has to accept a business license from the state either. But if they do, they have to abide by its terms.

And sometimes government imposes terms beyond their rightful ability.
 
nope not at all, i thanked you and said correct for the correct parts and parts i was thank you for. Basic honesty at its finest.

The contents and context i was referring and replied to remained 100% in tact.

The rest i haev no interest in as pointed out in the op nor did i address.

Indeed, and in so doing you try to change the context of the statement, which is slightly dishonest as I said. It's just that in this instance, you are ok with being slightly dishonest in your representation of my point.
 
Meh, slightly dishonest as it twists the context of my post, but whatever.

Nor do I unquestioningly accept laws.

This is not a black and white issue for me (no pun intended) but having weighed factors from both sides...over the years, the anti-discrimination laws *IMO* serve the greater good for society. By a great deal, not just a little. IMO, no society can reach its potential by marginalizing its minorities and not enabling their equal participation in that society.
 
sorry, its not my answer, it would be your answer, and your saying ...no.

can you tell me, how then a person makes a claim on a business for not serving them,..... since there is no rights violation?

That certainly was the theory for racial segregation and denying services and housing to blacks particularly in the South.
 
Nor do I unquestioningly accept laws.

This is not a black and white issue for me (no pun intended) but having weighed factors from both sides...over the years, the anti-discrimination laws *IMO* serve the greater good for society. By a great deal, not just a little. IMO, no society can reach its potential by marginalizing its minorities and not enabling their equal participation in that society.

I'm not sure that I agree that improper government force ultimately serves us all for the better. If anything, it just encourages government to continue acting improperly. And while we may feel good about one improper use of force, there are bound to be other instances of improper force that we disagree with. Instead we should take up our responsibility as freemen and accept the consequences of freedom, intelligently and consciously interact with the system to drive private enterprise towards rightful goals with consumer force while eliciting government force for actions which innately infringe upon the rights of others.
 
And sometimes government imposes terms beyond their rightful ability.

So, dont accept it. Choose another means of making a living.

I wouldnt be so cavalier if the protected classes werent specific and limited in the anti-discrimination laws...and it doesnt mean I have to like the ones there are.

I still support a business owner being able to refuse anything not on that list....and that list is much much much bigger...and yet, how often do you see or hear of a business owner kicking someone out for something they dont like? Or find objectionable or even morally unacceptable? Unless it's disruptive, not often. And that's because they are in business to make $. There are a million things that a business owner CAN choose to discriminate against....but doesnt.
 
So, dont accept it. Choose another means of making a living.

I wouldnt be so cavalier if the protected classes werent specific and limited in the anti-discrimination laws...and it doesnt mean I have to like the ones there are.

I still support a business owner being able to refuse anything not on that list....and that list is much much much bigger...and yet, how often do you see or hear of a business owner kicking someone out for something they dont like? Or find objectionable or even morally unacceptable? Unless it's disruptive, not often. And that's because they are in business to make $. There are a million things that a business owner CAN choose to discriminate against....but doesnt.

And that's where consumer pressure rules the day. There are just some things we cannot do, or rather shouldn't do, with government force. But it doesn't mean we are left empty handed. A free society requires an educated and participating population and it's our duty to fulfill that. We have more at our disposal than mere government force to elicit proper changes within society and local business.
 
I'm not sure that I agree that improper government force ultimately serves us all for the better. If anything, it just encourages government to continue acting improperly. And while we may feel good about one improper use of force, there are bound to be other instances of improper force that we disagree with. Instead we should take up our responsibility as freemen and accept the consequences of freedom, intelligently and consciously interact with the system to drive private enterprise towards rightful goals with consumer force while eliciting government force for actions which innately infringe upon the rights of others.

I think it's evident that the civil rights movement advanced the causes of blacks and women in the US. From those battles came our anti-discrimination laws. Again...when you consider private businesses and blacks, it's hard to say that things have not improved greatly...so much so that most people no longer even thing about the races mixing in public. Or the sexes. So yes, as I said, I have looked at this issue from both sides and while not black and white, I feel that the benefits justify it the laws.
 
1.)That's where, in reality, there are problems that gays face that others do not, so I suppose it's bending rules.
2.) Can gays have a place where they can gather a romantic setting without having people sneering, gawking and pointing at them calling the freaks and have some Bible beater who rented a room quoting Bible at them (ie exercising free speech?)
3.) Many cities and areas now, of course, have many places for gays and many communities are now gay tolerant or just so familiar with it that it isn't shocking. But some are not.
4.)Key West is known to be VERY sexually liberated beyond most of the USA. They have a nude parade once a year, for example. And they are in the heart of Bible beaters and rightwingers too. All cultures meet there - and could clash.

5.) So it gets to be a sticky topic. Can a business be a business for gay activities, where it known this means intimacy, and exclude heterosexuals?

6.) Well, the law also prohibits gender discrimination, but most restrooms do. Could a business have a nudist pool ONLY for women or ONLY for men? I think the law says no. Should it really? Maybe it just has to.

7.) But, in real terms, that means that hotel's pool area and overall the hotel for gays basically couldn't exist, and thus such a vacation romantic opportunity and socializing couldn't exist either.

8.) But, then, doesn't THAT just make another discrimination?

9.) If the state doesn't have gay marriage, and Florida doesn't,

10.) it actually makes a discrimination as it is NOT illegal to have "married only" activities as marital status isn't an item of discrimination. SO... in effect, a hotel COULD have a heterosexuals only rule by having a "married only" rule, right? But no gay couples only rule.

11.) Legislating non-discrimination isn't always as easy as it sounds, and can have unintended consequences that discriminate.

1.) i dont understand at all? theres no bending of the rules
2.) yes the same as straights if they, the couples have laws they cant cross and the on lookers have laws they can cross.

in most cases it would be obscenity laws for the couple and harassment/assult for the on lookers

3.) society is educating itself and standing up against bigots and or people in favor of denying rights

4.) interesting

5.) no if it breaks the law, its really that simply and soon these will be national laws

6.) yes it can as long as its based on the nudity issue and not gender discrimination. again its all what the law allows

7.) not sure how you come to this conclusion why is it any different than a straight romantic opportunity and socializing, i dont understand what you are saying

8.) yes it would but again i have no clue how you arrive at the conclusion they cant co exist

9.) again depending on the law state doesnt need gay marriage to have anti-discrimination laws, colorado doesnt

10.) not true i dont know about flordia but yes may places and companies and states etc have martial status as a anti-discrimination group

11.) this is true of everything but the proper thing to do is always protect rights and equality. The rest you deal with later
 
And that's where consumer pressure rules the day. There are just some things we cannot do, or rather shouldn't do, with government force. But it doesn't mean we are left empty handed. A free society requires an educated and participating population and it's our duty to fulfill that. We have more at our disposal than mere government force to elicit proper changes within society and local business.

I also agree. However IMO, blacks and probably women would STILL be waiting to be treated equally in our society. The intrusion of govt in these cases advanced their positions in society in years instead of decades.

And as you said, we need an educated society. In this case the govt intrusion assisted, accelerated, that education. Is it fair that Americans who ALREADY DESERVE to be treated equally, have to wait for the ignorant and intolerant to catch up? If ever? The fed govt is charged with protecting the minority over the will over the majority.
 
That certainly was the theory for racial segregation and denying services and housing to blacks particularly in the South.

whether these actions you speak are right or wrong, it does not matter.....of coarse i think they are wrong, however my feelings do not play a part in law.

every person has his rights to life liberty and property, and government has no moral authority to force people to do things against their will.

it violates the founding principles, the u.s. constitution, and state constitutions.

when we create laws, based on our feelings we are doomed, becuase who decides who feelings are going to be used.

everyone's feelings are not the same.

government is made up of people, .are those elected.. morality superior to the population, becuase they hold a term of office.
 
1.)Indeed, and in so doing you try to change the context of the statement, which is slightly dishonest as I said. It's just that in this instance, you are ok with being slightly dishonest in your representation of my point.

100% factually false your context is still there and theres no dishonesty. this fact will never change when anybody reads YOUR post your context is in place.
when anybody reads my post with only the part i think you for and acknowledged that was correct your context is still 100% in places because i didn't address anything else.

zero dishonesty lol facts prove your statement wrong(calling it dishonest). If you disagree prove how the context was factually changed and then factually prove the dishonest part. You post will completely fail. I cant wait for this!

if you say that color looks beautiful on you even though you are fat and i say thank you for like the color, nothing was changed about your context lol
 
Back
Top Bottom