Ministers threatened with arrest

[Amacia]

That's what most people are arguing, that they should be punished.

No, we aren't. We're arguing under the theoretical premise that the OP isn't full of shit. If you don't understand that blatantly obvious fact, that's your own problem.

Many people have said this law applies to them, even when it doesn't, and they should be punished.

[Neutraligon]

Leave Charlie alone.

That's what most people are arguing, that they should be punished.

No they are arguing that as a for profit business they should face the consequences for having broken the law. Since they are actually registered as a religious organization, they are no longer subject to that law, which makes them making a big stink rather ridiculous. Since they are the ones bringing up useless lawsuits they should then be punished for that.

[Mavorpen]

No, we aren't. We're arguing under the theoretical premise that the OP isn't full of shit. If you don't understand that blatantly obvious fact, that's your own problem.

Many people have said this law applies to them, even when it doesn't, and they should be punished.

Right, and they were working under the assumption that the OP WASN'T full of shit. Because they didn't KNOW that the OP was full of shit. This isn't complicated at all.

[Amacia]

Many people have said this law applies to them, even when it doesn't, and they should be punished.

Right, and they were working under the assumption that the OP WASN'T full of shit. Because they didn't KNOW that the OP was full of shit. This isn't complicated at all.

Then why am I the first person to look up the text of the ordinance in question, it wasn't that hard?

[Mavorpen]

Right, and they were working under the assumption that the OP WASN'T full of shit. Because they didn't KNOW that the OP was full of shit. This isn't complicated at all.

Then why am I the first person to look up the text of the ordinance in question, it wasn't that hard?

... You're now asking questions that have nothing to do with what I posted, why, exactly?

[Amacia]

Then why am I the first person to look up the text of the ordinance in question, it wasn't that hard?

... You're now asking questions that have nothing to do with what I posted, why, exactly?

Well, even after they found out he was full of shit, they still think they should be punished.

[Mavorpen]

... You're now asking questions that have nothing to do with what I posted, why, exactly?

Well, even after they found out he was full of shit, they still think they should be punished.

Okay, I guess you're now going to just ignore everything I post considering I JUST explained to you why that's bullshit.

[Amacia]

Well, even after they found out he was full of shit, they still think they should be punished.

Okay, I guess you're now going to just ignore everything I post considering I JUST explained to you why that's bullshit.

I know that you know he's full of shit, but I guess other people (like Dyakovo) don't.

[Mavorpen]

Okay, I guess you're now going to just ignore everything I post considering I JUST explained to you why that's bullshit.

I know that you know he's full of shit, but I guess other people (like Dyakovo) don't.

Holy fucking shit it's like talking to a wall. Okay, I'll explain this ONE more time.

Dyakovo has never, not once, said that they should be punished after becoming a religious corporation. Dyakovo's ENTIRE argument relies on them being a public accommodation. And that's where he's arguing from. Under the assumption that IF they were still a public accommodation, they should be punished. This isn't difficult to understand. Why the hell you feel the need to blatantly misrepresent other people's arguments baffles me.

[Amacia]

I know that you know he's full of shit, but I guess other people (like Dyakovo) don't.

Holy fucking shit it's like talking to a wall. Okay, I'll explain this ONE more time.

Dyakovo has never, not once, said that they should be punished after becoming a religious corporation. Dyakovo's ENTIRE argument relies on them being a public accommodation. And that's where he's arguing from. Under the assumption that IF they were still a public accommodation, they should be punished. This isn't difficult to understand. Why the hell you feel the need to blatantly misrepresent other people's arguments baffles me.

Then why is he arguing if they are a public accommodation when they aren't? I've told him they aren't and he said they ARE.

[Mavorpen]

Holy fucking shit it's like talking to a wall. Okay, I'll explain this ONE more time.

Dyakovo has never, not once, said that they should be punished after becoming a religious corporation. Dyakovo's ENTIRE argument relies on them being a public accommodation. And that's where he's arguing from. Under the assumption that IF they were still a public accommodation, they should be punished. This isn't difficult to understand. Why the hell you feel the need to blatantly misrepresent other people's arguments baffles me.

Then why is he arguing if they are a public accommodation when they aren't? I've told him they aren't and he said they ARE.

Because he can't see into the fucking future. He probably assumed you were talking out of your ass, something I would probably go along with as well. If you're going to make that claim, provide evidence for it. Don't ask stupid questions that you can only ask AFTER the fact that someone provided information showing the assumption was wrong.

[Neutraligon]

Holy fucking shit it's like talking to a wall. Okay, I'll explain this ONE more time.

Dyakovo has never, not once, said that they should be punished after becoming a religious corporation. Dyakovo's ENTIRE argument relies on them being a public accommodation. And that's where he's arguing from. Under the assumption that IF they were still a public accommodation, they should be punished. This isn't difficult to understand. Why the hell you feel the need to blatantly misrepresent other people's arguments baffles me.

Then why is he arguing if they are a public accommodation when they aren't? I've told him they aren't and he said they ARE.

Where did you say they were not. You only claimed they were run by ministers. They had been a public accommodation and were pretending to be one still. It was not until later that we learned they were no longer one, at which point pretty much everyone agreed they were liars and trying to use a frivolous law suit. Since they are doing that they should be punished for the frivolous lawsuit.

[Amacia]

Then why is he arguing if they are a public accommodation when they aren't? I've told him they aren't and he said they ARE.

Where did you say they were not. You only claimed they were run by ministers. They had been a public accommodation and were pretending to be one still. It was not until later that we learned they were no longer one, at which point pretty much everyone agreed they were liars and trying to use a frivolous law suit. Since they are doing that they should be punished for the frivolous lawsuit.

I only argued that they were ministers today. Go back in the thread and you'll see.

If it was a frivolous lawsuit then I could see your point. But the city said they were going to press charges and then backed down.

[Amacia]

Then why is he arguing if they are a public accommodation when they aren't? I've told him they aren't and he said they ARE.

Because he can't see into the fucking future. He probably assumed you were talking out of your ass, something I would probably go along with as well. If you're going to make that claim, provide evidence for it. Don't ask stupid questions that you can only ask AFTER the fact that someone provided information showing the assumption was wrong.

Dyakovo said that the city wouldn't press charges cause they were cowards.

[Mavorpen]

Because he can't see into the fucking future. He probably assumed you were talking out of your ass, something I would probably go along with as well. If you're going to make that claim, provide evidence for it. Don't ask stupid questions that you can only ask AFTER the fact that someone provided information showing the assumption was wrong.

Dyakovo said that the city wouldn't press charges cause they were cowards.

Because, once again, he thought that they were still a public accommodation. No one had provided any evidence otherwise at that point.

I'm fucking done here. You're literally just posting shit that are easily addressed with something I've repeated at least three times now. If you aren't going to read my posts there's no point.

[Neutraligon]

Where did you say they were not. You only claimed they were run by ministers. They had been a public accommodation and were pretending to be one still. It was not until later that we learned they were no longer one, at which point pretty much everyone agreed they were liars and trying to use a frivolous law suit. Since they are doing that they should be punished for the frivolous lawsuit.

I only argued that they were ministers today. Go back in the thread and you'll see.

If it was a frivolous lawsuit then I could see your point. But the city said they were going to press charges and then backed down.

And if this were a public accommodation as it once was their being ministers would be irrelevant.

[Amacia]

Dyakovo said that the city wouldn't press charges cause they were cowards.

Because, once again, he thought that they were still a public accommodation. No one had provided any evidence otherwise at that point.

I'm fucking done here. You're literally just posting shit that are easily addressed with something I've repeated at least three times now. If you aren't going to read my posts there's no point.

You know, it's very possible that I'm mixing up many of the people in this thread. I guess I sort of made an ass out of myself. I apologize in that regard. But I still would like to hear from him.

[Dyakovo]

Right, and they were working under the assumption that the OP WASN'T full of shit. Because they didn't KNOW that the OP was full of shit. This isn't complicated at all.

Then why am I the first person to look up the text of the ordinance in question, it wasn't that hard?

You aren't.

[Amacia]

Then why am I the first person to look up the text of the ordinance in question, it wasn't that hard?

You aren't.

I've since found that out. I apologize.

[Dyakovo]

Dyakovo said that the city wouldn't press charges cause they were cowards.

Because, once again, he thought that they were still a public accommodation. No one had provided any evidence otherwise at that point.

I'm fucking done here. You're literally just posting shit that are easily addressed with something I've repeated at least three times now. If you aren't going to read my posts there's no point.

To be fair, I think The Hitching Post should still be answerable to discrimination laws. The whole idea of a business having religious beliefs is bullshit. A business is not a sapient, sentient being, and as such is incapable of having beliefs.

[Amacia]

Because, once again, he thought that they were still a public accommodation. No one had provided any evidence otherwise at that point.

I'm fucking done here. You're literally just posting shit that are easily addressed with something I've repeated at least three times now. If you aren't going to read my posts there's no point.

To be fair, I think The Hitching Post should still be answerable to discrimination laws. The whole idea of a business having religious beliefs is bullshit. A business is not a sapient, sentient being, and as such is incapable of having beliefs.

What about sole proprietorships?

[Dyakovo]

To be fair, I think The Hitching Post should still be answerable to discrimination laws. The whole idea of a business having religious beliefs is bullshit. A business is not a sapient, sentient being, and as such is incapable of having beliefs.

What about sole proprietorships?

What about them?

[Amacia]

What about sole proprietorships?

What about them?

It's a business, but is identified with the one providing it, a "sapient, sentient being" in your words.

[The Black Forrest]

What about them?

It's a business, but is identified with the one providing it, a "sapient, sentient being" in your words.

It's a business so the same is in play.

It's simple. If there is an open sign, they have to follow the rules.

[Amacia]

It's a business, but is identified with the one providing it, a "sapient, sentient being" in your words.

It's a business so the same is in play.

It's simple. If there is an open sign, they have to follow the rules.

He said businesses aren't capable of beliefs. A sole proprietorship is. As is a general partnership.

And as I've said for the umpteenth time, at this point RIGHT NOW, the law no longer applies to them.