• 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!

Startbucks' Open Bathroom Policy Killing Sales. Love It When PC Suck-ups Fail.

CLAX1911 said:
you wonder this because you are subjugated.

Part of why you are so ignorant also. If we made it illegal for citizens to have guns that wouldn't stop criminals from using them. It would just stop you from being able to defend yourself with one. Basically suspending your right to life.

Nothing about your gun laws is coming sense. You aren't grown up enough to have them. You need Mommy government to protect you.
Click to expand...

"Subjugated"!:lamo What utter nonsense. Your 'self-protection' crap hasn't prevented tens of thousands of you from getting shot every year, has it? Oh, and our "Mommy government" and our eminently sensible gun laws have ensured that we have had NO mass-shootings since they were enacted. It might also be worth mentioning that the two horrific massacres (Hungerford and Dunblane), which prompted our government to act, were perpetrated by killers with legally held firearms. Learn:
Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Mashmont said:
No it wouldn't. You would have Catholic principles, but you wouldn't call them that. Instead, you would call them good principles. It's kinda like the schools do now in promoting godless principles like disseminating birth control. But those principles are anything but good.
Click to expand...

You already let that cat out of the bag - give up.
 
snakestretcher said:
"Subjugated"!:lamo What utter nonsense. Your 'self-protection' crap hasn't prevented tens of thousands of you from getting shot every year, has it? Oh, and our "Mommy government" and our eminently sensible gun laws have ensured that we have had NO mass-shootings since they were enacted. It might also be worth mentioning that the two horrific massacres (Hungerford and Dunblane), which prompted our government to act, were perpetrated by killers with legally held firearms. Learn:
Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) appears to be almost true.

Although legislative action following the Dunblane massacre coincided with the last school shooting in the United Kingdom, it did not spell a complete end to mass shootings in that country. On 2 June 2010, 52-year-old Derrick Bird shot and killed twelve people and injured eleven more during an hours-long shooting spree in Cumbria before killing himself.
Click to expand...

FACT CHECK: No School Shootings in the United Kingdom Since Handguns Were Banned?
 
snakestretcher said:
"Subjugated"!:lamo What utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Predicable response from a subjugated person in denial.
Your 'self-protection' crap hasn't prevented tens of thousands of you from getting shot every year, has it?
Click to expand...
I think the estimate is between 500,000 and 3,000,000 people defending themselves from being shot.

Yeah there are still people that get shot and killed but if rather be able to defend myself.
Oh, and our "Mommy government" and our eminently sensible gun laws have ensured that we have had NO mass-shootings since they were enacted.
Click to expand...
Moronic laws won't work here. They've been tried.
It might also be worth mentioning that the two horrific massacres (Hungerford and Dunblane), which prompted our government to act, were perpetrated by killers with legally held firearms. Learn:
Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
So murder isn't really bad if it's committed using an illegally held fire arm?

What stops people from having fire arms?
 
I LOVE Starbucks but not for their coffee. I use that awful company for one thing and one thing only and that is as a public restroom. So good to hear their idiotic social engineering group think policies are slapping them back in the face.

For the record I believe a private company should be full within their rights to tell anyone to leave, or that they can't use their restroom facilities unless they are a paying customer. When I have to use a restroom at any other place other than Starbucks I will in fact at least make a nominal purchase in appreciation for access to their restroom. But Starbucks is a special case with that company's history of virtue signalling and other dopey baloney. Truth be told their coffee tastes like a restroom anyway--- so fitting I suppose.
 
Mashmont said:
The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. There have been no rulings which have precluded Catholic moral principles from being taught in the public schools. Things like no sex outside marriage, respecting women by marrying them....they are wise principles to live by for anyone, Catholic or otherwise. I personally would like to see the Rosary and other great tools of prayer in the schools and if bad ruling have gotten in the way of that, they need to be reversed.
Click to expand...

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment most definitely does creates a wall of separation between religion and the state at all levels of the government when you include the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were adamant about this idea and necessary for political and social stability as well as the protection of rights for all people equally. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists has been used by the SOTUS as the meaning of the Establishment Clause for 100+ years.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Click to expand...


You keep your myths to yourself because that same idea prevents Sharia law and a theiocracy from occurring. Everyone else has the same religious rights that you do and your beliefs do not permit you to trample the religious and secular rights of everyone else just because of your lack of logical thought.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You already let that cat out of the bag - give up.
Click to expand...

Religious conservatives can never tell the truth about their theocratic agenda, despite the clear commandment to tell the truth. Mashmont's idea is not different than Sharia law and it must be reacted to equally by publically crushing it in a way that it cannot return. Public schools or any other institution that is paid for with tax dollars are not to be used as a recruiting or training ground for religious belief.
 
Lisa said:
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment most definitely does creates a wall of separation between religion and the state at all levels of the government when you include the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were adamant about this idea and necessary for political and social stability as well as the protection of rights for all people equally. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists has been used by the SOTUS as the meaning of the Establishment Clause for 100+ years.



You keep your myths to yourself because that same idea prevents Sharia law and a theiocracy from occurring. Everyone else has the same religious rights that you do and your beliefs do not permit you to trample the religious and secular rights of everyone else just because of your lack of logical thought.
Click to expand...

1000 words, and you still couldn't refute my claim that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state. You could have achieved the same thing in only four words; "You win again, Mash".
 
Lisa said:
Religious conservatives can never tell the truth about their theocratic agenda, despite the clear commandment to tell the truth. Mashmont's idea is not different than Sharia law and it must be reacted to equally by publically crushing it in a way that it cannot return. Public schools or any other institution that is paid for with tax dollars are not to be used as a recruiting or training ground for religious belief.
Click to expand...

Since Catholic teaching is also 'good' and 'righteous' teaching, it doesn't matter what you call it. Sharia Law, however is neither good nor righteous.
 
Mashmont said:
Still waiting for you to prove there is no God. Why are you dodging?
Click to expand...

How many times do I need to explain the burden of proof to you? You are making a positive claim( your god exists) so you need to prove your claim to be empirically true. if you cannot prove your claim to be empirically true and the claim to be testable by people of any faith or no faith at all, then you have not met your burden of proof that God exists. Your religious beliefs and faith are not empirical proof.


Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki
 
Mashmont said:
1000 words, and you still couldn't refute my claim that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state. You could have achieved the same thing in only four words; "You win again, Mash".
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse.

1.) The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

2.) The Establishment Clause creates a separation of church and state. That is why it exists.

3.) You have only only ever won the Dunning-Kruger award.
 
Mashmont said:
Since Catholic teaching is also 'good' and 'righteous' teaching, it doesn't matter what you call it. Sharia Law, however, is neither good nor righteous.
Click to expand...

The state cannot enact laws that show favoritism to religious belief over non-belief. The state also cannot enact laws that exhibit favoritism to one religious sect over the other. Your idea would violate both ideas because it is showing favoritism to religious belief over non-belief and it is showing favoritism to the Catholic faith over other Christian sects.

If this idea would become law then every other religious belief would get equal time in public schools to force their religious dogma on students, including Muslims and Satanists. Christians cannot deny that Satan exists without weakening their own claims of religious belief.


You lost again.
 
Lisa said:
How many times do I need to explain the burden of proof to you? You are making a positive claim( your god exists) so you need to prove your claim to be empirically true. if you cannot prove your claim to be empirically true and the claim to be testable by people of any faith or no faith at all, then you have not met your burden of proof that God exists. Your religious beliefs and faith are not empirical proof.


Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki
Click to expand...

Let us wait until he posts the links to the threads in which he claims to have proved the existence of the Christian god.
 
Mashmont said:
1000 words, and you still couldn't refute my claim that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state. You could have achieved the same thing in only four words; "You win again, Mash".
Click to expand...

Links to the threads, please.
 
Mashmont said:
1000 words, and you still couldn't refute my claim that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state. You could have achieved the same thing in only four words; "You win again, Mash".
Click to expand...

You didn't win.
 
Mashmont said:
Since Catholic teaching is also 'good' and 'righteous' teaching, it doesn't matter what you call it. Sharia Law, however is neither good nor righteous.
Click to expand...

Not according to my Irish friends who had the misfortune of being educated by the Christian Brothers.
 
zyzygy said:
Let us wait until he posts the links to the threads in which he claims to have proved the existence of the Christian god.
Click to expand...

I'll make a pot of coffee while we wait.
 
Superfly said:
I don’t know, dad. I’ll let you know if and when you get to monitor what I post, and how relevant to the topic it actually is.
Click to expand...

At least there is consistency in your dishonesty.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Oh, I guess it was some big to do a while back
Click to expand...

It was a big deal for leftist media. Almost no one on the right cared. I have never personally met anyone that took issue with Starbuck's coffee mugs.
 
Fishking said:
It was a big deal for leftist media. Almost no one on the right cared. I have never personally met anyone that took issue with Starbuck's coffee mugs.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it. One lone but says something ridiculous and therefore people use that to say it's representative of an entire demographic.

That's funny coming from the people that talk about racism all the time
 
Lisa said:
How many times do I need to explain the burden of proof to you? You are making a positive claim( your god exists) so you need to prove your claim to be empirically true. if you cannot prove your claim to be empirically true and the claim to be testable by people of any faith or no faith at all, then you have not met your burden of proof that God exists. Your religious beliefs and faith are not empirical proof.


Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki
Click to expand...

I've provided a logical proof on other threads, namely the Good Fruits argument. Then there is the circumstantial evidence, aka, the 10,000 NDE's. some of which have been had by atheists, and caused their conversion. Atheists have provided zero proof of any kind for their atheist beliefs.
 
Lisa said:
The state cannot enact laws that show favoritism to religious belief over non-belief. The state also cannot enact laws that exhibit favoritism to one religious sect over the other. Your idea would violate both ideas because it is showing favoritism to religious belief over non-belief and it is showing favoritism to the Catholic faith over other Christian sects.

If this idea would become law then every other religious belief would get equal time in public schools to force their religious dogma on students, including Muslims and Satanists. Christians cannot deny that Satan exists without weakening their own claims of religious belief.


You lost again.
Click to expand...

See, the part you don't understand is atheism is every bit a religion as Christianity, except atheists don't want religious designation. Why not? Because they get their own way through government right now, by default. That's why they and you constantly blab about separation of church and state. Since there is no such thing as a religious vacuum. The opposite of religion isn't nothing; it's atheism. So whenever Christianity is rejected by government because of the'church and state separation meme, then atheism gets enacted. And that needs to stop. Atheism NEEDS to be recognized as an official religion so it will have to go head-to-head with Christianity legally. And that's a battle it can never win.
 
Manc Skipper said:
So when exactly did Starbucks sales drop? I can't understand why I never bothered to fact-check before, it's not like zealots have ever lied, or anything...

Starbucks (SBUX) earnings Q4 2019 meet estimates
Click to expand...

The article I linked says foot traffic has decreased 6%. That's a very bad sign. Liberal customers just don't want to be near those kinds of people. That's why they weren't cleaning up after Katrina. The left talked a great game, but the clean-up was done by church people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom