"Anti-Islam" T-shirt pulled from Ft. Carson exchange

[Great-Kazoo]

"The juxtaposition of that shocking image and text message on that T-shirt epitomizes the wretched plight of prejudice and bigotry which innocent Muslim Americans all too often suffer while so honorably serving in today's service branches," the foundation wrote in a statement.


Hey, Mikey Weinstein, Fuck You ...Strong letter to follow.









A T-Shirt offends, Yet a Crucifix upside down in Urine is Considered ART AND protected under the 1st amendment.

Is this the same religion the American Military was ORDERED to ignore when Islamic men sexually assault young boys??

[Martinjmpr]

Why does a Colorado baker have to "bake the cake" while Muslim drivers in Illinois sue (and win) over hauling alcohol? Not only did they get paid, they get their jobs. The CO baker has to pay and bake the cake.

The bakers were sued under a Colorado state law.

Colorado law does not apply in Illinois.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Mikey Weinstein is a horse's patoot.

[Bailey Guns]

"The juxtaposition of that shocking image and text message on that T-shirt epitomizes the wretched plight of prejudice and bigotry which innocent Muslim Americans all too often suffer while so honorably serving in today's service branches," the foundation wrote in a statement.

No shit. Nidal Hassan might be offended if he saw that shirt. Wouldn't want that to happen now would we?

What a fuckin' douche.

[Skip]

The bakers were sued under a Colorado state law.

Colorado law does not apply in Illinois.

Nice try. They are both examples of equal treatment under the law. I believe the 14th Amendment is incorporated against the states, is it not? Yes, I believe so--in fact that was the whole idea.

One group can be offended and pound sand. The other gets victimhood status. This is not an accident.

[3beansalad]

Mikey, what a knob.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Martinjmpr]

Nice try. They are both examples of equal treatment under the law. I believe the 14th Amendment is incorporated against the states, is it not? Yes, I believe so--in fact that was the whole idea.

Nope. The lawsuit against the bakers had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Here is the relevant statute (relevant parts in red):

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Some states have laws like this, some states don't. In Arizona, for example, you can discriminate against gays all you want, but in CO you can't. I have no idea what the law is in IL .

[Skip]

Nope. The lawsuit against the bakers had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Here is the relevant statute (relevant parts in red):

Some states have laws like this, some states don't. In Arizona, for example, you can discriminate against gays all you want, but in CO you can't. I have no idea what the law is in IL .

That wasn't my point at all.

Two Muslims got a special religious accommodation in the workplace. The CO baker who is Christian did not. Both work activities required the employees to compromise their faith. One was made to the submit, the others got paid and refuse the activity.

The substance of the CO baker case was that religious beliefs/conscience have no place in the public space. A concept that is frequently ignored when it's Islam (or really any religion other than Christianity).

Show me in any law where one religion is more equal than another. You can't. And that is the basis of the 14th Amendment. But that's the written law. We don't live under that anymore. We live under the subjective and every changing Liberal code decided by our betters.

That code says you can't offend Muslims but it's perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged, to not only offend but attack Christians.

[Irving]

There is a religion based on national auto pricing?

[Skip]

There is a religion based on national auto pricing?

You haven't met my FIL...