Only black reporters allowed in Mayoral race event

[AGENT J]

Sorry, Mayoral functions are not private.

says what facts? :lamo

that is up to the venue and in this case its a church and they are factually allowed to control who comes in.

 

[PoppyCock]

says what facts? :lamo

that is up to the venue and in this case its a church and they are factually allowed to control who comes in.

And i'm factually allowed to call them racist ass bigots.

 

[AGENT J]

And i'm factually allowed to call them racist ass bigots.

of course thats freedom of speech
but the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

 

[PoppyCock]

of course thats freedom of speech
but the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

It's only a "non story" to those who think racism is fine, as longs as non whites do it. A very racist posistion to hold

 

[AGENT J]

It's only a "non story" to those who think racism is fine, as longs as non whites do it. A very racist posistion to hold

wrong again if you read the thread you see lost of posters think this is a non story and they also dont think racism is fine LMAO

so it seems like we are in the same spot
the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

 

[PoppyCock]

wrong again if you read the thread you see lost of posters think this is a non story and they also dont think racism is fine LMAO

so it seems like we are in the same spot
the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

Everything i saw on your whataboutism deflection agrees that is also racist.


White Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple - YouTube
YouTube



2:40
Aug 02, 2012 · --Pastor Stan Weatherford of the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi, agreed to not marry a black couple in the church after racist white people complained. --On the Bonus Show ...
Author: David Pakman Show

 

[AGENT J]

Everything i saw on your whataboutism deflection agrees that is also racist.


White Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple - YouTube
YouTube



2:40
Aug 02, 2012 · --Pastor Stan Weatherford of the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi, agreed to not marry a black couple in the church after racist white people complained. --On the Bonus Show ...
Author: David Pakman Show

wow, along with your claims factually having no clue about US laws and rights you need to look up the definition of whataboutism and deflection because i didnt post either one :lamo
when did i say its not racist? wow talk about completely owning yourself, any other retarded strawmen youd like to make up? this is hilarious, please keep this entertainment fail train of yours going!!!

fact remains the church is free to do as it wants in this case

opcorn2:

 

[PoppyCock]

wow, along with your claims factually having no clue about US laws and rights you need to look up the definition of whataboutism and deflection because i didnt post either one :lamo
when did i say its not racist? wow talk about completely owning yourself, any other retarded strawmen youd like to make up? this is hilarious, please keep this entertainment fail train of yours going!!!

fact remains the church is free to do as it wants in this case

opcorn2:

Just keep acting like racism is no big deal, we are done here. Both incidents are racist as hell, your deflection is dated 2012, Obama years, no surprise.

And you DID employ the whataboutism deflection. I dont do the childish insult road, enjoy your evening.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Just keep acting like racism is no big deal
2.) we are done here.
3.) Both incidents are racist as hell
4.) your deflection is dated 2012, Obama years, no surprise.
5.)And you DID employ the whataboutism deflection.
6.) I dont do the childish insult road
7.) enjoy your evening.

1.) LMAO again where did i say that? please quote it, ill wait!
2.) youve been done for posts now since facts destroyed your claims at every turn
3.) when did i say they werent racist? oh thats right i didnt :lamo another failed and retarded strawman by you
4.) there was no deflection and that vidoe was what YOU posted not me . . hahaha this keeps getting better and better
5.) facts and definitions prove otherwise
6.) your thread history prove otherwise
7.) already am, destroying lies like you posted is always an enjoyment

fact remains the church is free to do as it wants in this case as to who it lets in

 

[veritas1]

LMAO and the dodging and meltdown continues:lamo

ill ask you again

the left? where?
what double standards?

who here said they think this is OK personally and represents the left .. . .also isnt one of the candidates a republican?

What makes you think the universe of the left is limited to this forum? Do you see anyone in the MSM having a problem with it?

 

[AGENT J]

What makes you think the universe of the left is limited to this forum? Do you see anyone in the MSM having a problem with it?

LMAO another completle dodge of my questions, its always fun owning your lies bias.
Can you quote where i said "the universe of the left is limited to this forum"? please do so now

ill ask you again

the left? where?
what double standards?

who here said they think this is OK personally and represents the left .. . .also isnt one of the candidates a republican?

 

[veritas1]

LMAO another completle dodge of my questions, its always fun owning your lies bias.
Can you quote where i said "the universe of the left is limited to this forum"? please do so now

ill ask you again

the left? where?
what double standards?

who here said they think this is OK personally and represents the left .. . .also isnt one of the candidates a republican?

You keep asking who here said it is OK when I'm not talking about the few people who might post here but the left generally. One of the candidates may be a Republican. I'm not sure what that has to do with the larger issue of the left's (meaning Dems and the MSM) double standards. I've pointed out some major ones among the many they demonstrate. Just because you don't acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist. Like I said, is anyone in the liberal MSM having a problem with it? Would they have a problem if the colors were reversed? We all know the answer.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Exclusionary policy by the majority power is inherently bigoted. Exclusionary policy by a minority power is empowering.

Minorities cannot escape racial bigotry at the social level (racism).

The majority is under no threat of disadvantage as a group.

Women sports reporters were given permission to go into male locker rooms because being kept out, gave the male reporters an unfair advantage. Legally, how is that different from barring white reporters from a political event covering a mayoral race? Doesn't that give black reporters an unfair advantage?

 

[AGENT J]

You keep asking who here said it is OK when I'm not talking about the few people who might post here but the left generally. One of the candidates may be a Republican. I'm not sure what that has to do with the larger issue of the left's (meaning Dems and the MSM) double standards. I've pointed out some major ones among the many they demonstrate. Just because you don't acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist. Like I said, is anyone in the liberal MSM having a problem with it? Would they have a problem if the colors were reversed? We all know the answer.

you keep dodging and trying these desperate deflections and reframs but they will keep failing and you will conitnue to have zero logic support ot prove of your failed claims

ill ask you again

the left? where?
what double standards?

who here said they think this is OK personally and represents the left .. . .also isnt one of the candidates a republican?

 

[mrdeltoid]

wrong again if you read the thread you see lost of posters think this is a non story and they also dont think racism is fine LMAO

so it seems like we are in the same spot
the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

So you're saying letting reporters of both races cover the story violates their freedom of religion? How so? Their doctrine is the Christian bible right? Where does it say that?

 

[AGENT J]

So you're saying letting reporters of both races cover the story violates their freedom of religion? How so? Their doctrine is the Christian bible right? Where does it say that?

please quote where i said that retarded strawman you just made up, we'll be waiting LOL


the facts remains inside a church they can do what they want within reason LMAO this is a non-story just like the stories on the white churches that wont marry blacks ...
theres no illegal discrimination in either case

 

[mrdeltoid]

You keep asking who here said it is OK when I'm not talking about the few people who might post here but the left generally. One of the candidates may be a Republican. I'm not sure what that has to do with the larger issue of the left's (meaning Dems and the MSM) double standards. I've pointed out some major ones among the many they demonstrate. Just because you don't acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist. Like I said, is anyone in the liberal MSM having a problem with it? Would they have a problem if the colors were reversed? We all know the answer.

It's frustrating talking to somebody with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalala, isn't it?

 

[AGENT J]

It's frustrating talking to somebody with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalala, isn't it?

Sweet sweet irony!!
opcorn2:

 

[ecofarm]

Women sports reporters were given permission to go into male locker rooms because being kept out, gave the male reporters an unfair advantage. Legally, how is that different from barring white reporters from a political event covering a mayoral race? Doesn't that give black reporters an unfair advantage?

And still you don't get the ****ing point, the bigger picture or what anyone is talking about. Good job.

 

[Bodi]

Way to support factual racism.

Learn what racism actually is... and it is not about meeting with your own race. Nothing to do with it at all...

 

[Bodi]

Pray to Jesus on Sunday..............and hate "whitie" on Monday!

Some church!

And a dumb reply by you.

Separation of Church and State... ever heard of it?

 

[Port & Starboard]

Separation of Church and State... ever heard of it?

This not the point the OP was making.

Keep up.

My point is relevant.

 

[mrdeltoid]

And still you don't get the ****ing point, the bigger picture or what anyone is talking about. Good job.

Denying one reporter the right to earn a living based on race is illegal. The mayoral race is a public issue. The press may cover a political event. In this case because it is a church, they may exclude the press, or invite the press. What they cannot do, is allow one race to do their job, excluding the other, on basis of race/color. That's what the article was about. One poster denied it was a story. I disagreed, and that was it. You conflated "Racial Bigotry at the Social level" with the legal perspective. Just because it is not what YOU were talking about, doesn't mean it's not what "anyone "is talking about. Feel free to take the topic in any direction you want, but keep in mind this is a public forum and other posters may comment on it. If you aren't interested in mine, put me on ignore.

 

[Bodi]

This not the point the OP was making.

Keep up.

My point is relevant.

Not really... a private institution or group, like a church, is free to exclude whomever they want to. It is not racism.

The Mormons exclude all non-Mormons from Temple... it is legal. Nobody has taken them to Court for Discrimination as far as I know.

 

[AGENT J]

This not the point the OP was making.

Keep up.

My point is relevant.

The OP didnt have a valid point it failed as the thread shows :shrug:
the church is free to do as it likes in this regard
. . .while i don't agree with its actions, it actions violate no rights and break no laws and i support the right of the church to be able to do so. Again this is just like white churches that dont allow black members or wont even marry its own black members or a bunch of other different scenarios where a church controls its doors and people etc may or may not be allowed.