Quote from: Dori on June 30, 2015, 06:24:12 PM
A lot of ignorant people.  Several people handled that cake order, not just one person.  Sounds like something our government employees would do.

You might be right Dori, but with my experience at a Walmart bakery, I talked directly with the cake decorator about my order.  She made notes.....decorated the cake and put it in a closed box.  I doubt that anyone else in the deli saw the cake but her.

I really can't blame these "Low Information Workers". They get their news from fluff sources and just try to live their day-to-day lives. But I know, because of their news sources, they know they're now supposed to hate THAT flag. No, not ISIS, the OTHER one!

Quote from: carlb on June 30, 2015, 06:32:30 PM
I really can't blame these "Low Information Workers". They get their news from fluff sources and just try to live their day-to-day lives. But I know, because of their news sources, they know they're now supposed to hate THAT flag. No, not ISIS, the OTHER one!

Even the Commander in Chief isn't as concerned about ISIS as he is of presumed black/white racism.  That is his favorite issue!!  Whether it is a flag or a contrived police incident.... he just l-o-v-e-s to talk about racism.

Quote from: Dori on June 29, 2015, 07:30:57 AM
It Begins: New Calls To Strip Churches of Tax Exempt Status After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

For years conservatives and proponents of religious liberty in America have warned that if same-sex marriage became legal, the left would then pursue revoking the tax exempt status for religious institutions, particularly Christian churches, around the country.


Just days after the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that gay marriage is a constitutional right, progressive activists like Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times are calling for tax exempt statutes to be stripped.

That would be Unconstitutional as well. So if this liberal wants that fine. Let him get the Congress to pass a new amendment to the Constitution, and get the states too ratify it as well. As is the process defined and set down by the Constitution. Otherwise he should just shut the hell up and go away.

Quote from: daidalos on July 02, 2015, 03:01:53 AM
That would be Unconstitutional as well. So if this liberal wants that fine. Let him get the Congress to pass a new amendment to the Constitution, and get the states too ratify it as well. As is the process defined and set down by the Constitution. Otherwise he should just shut the hell up and go away.

You say that as if the Constitution means anything to the majority of our elected officials...

Quote from: Darth Fife on July 02, 2015, 03:14:35 AM
You say that as if the Constitution means anything to the majority of our elected officials...

Darth that's the problem, too many people in Washington D.C. don't. In fact that's why Obama is still in office. And why replacing those who don't uphold our Constitution shouldn't be elected, or re-elected. Any member of Congress who casts a single vote for something which is clearly unconstitutional bill, should be de-elected the very next election.

If the people would do that, then we might have a shot at restoring our Republic to what it used to be. And restoring our own liberties in the process. Oh and so everyone knows, I"m leaving for now, hence I won't be replying to anyone. Or the so called "facts" which actually support my view. HAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: keyboarder on June 29, 2015, 06:44:59 PM
My flag is the confederate flag as I am a SC gal and born way after all the upheaval in the north/south.  I don't care what some thought of that flag as I have my own opinion about it and don't care to rewrite history to say anything other than what it was really about during that time.  That flag in no way represents slavery to me. 

It is tragic that the nine AME church members died in such a horrific display of hatred.  The sickness and evil of the shooter goes way deeper than just a flag.  I witnessed the coming together of SC natives, a mixed crowd, in unity of comfort and bereavement for the victims and their families and friends.  I'll go a little further here and offer my suggestion of allowing the citizens to vote their conscience on removal of the flag.  I could support either decision in honor of the victims, could you?  This is such a little problem in light of the overwhelming events that are taking place as I type.

Is it the flag of your black neighbors? To them that flag is about what exactly? How about it being about the "Lost Cause" of slavery or the "Lost Cause" of  Jim Crow. The idea that just because the left attacks something, it must be good would put us into the role of defending Fascism and Nazism.

Quote from: keyboarder on June 30, 2015, 03:11:34 PM
Giles, I'm way past that time in history and so are you.  I didn't own a slave and know of no one in my family history that did.  All my folks were hog farmers on my Mom's side and Law enforcement on my Dad's side.  No slaves anywhere to be found in my past.  That is precisely the reason I do not look at that flag as slavery.  You, on the other hand, may have had family members to have lived thru the atrocities of that time and I understand that you have and will never agree with me about that flag.  It is our history here though and I am not undermined by your accusations of my "low intelligence" because I don't go into the background and dredge up the articles of secession.  I am particularly interested in SC history, all of it.  I never have understood why a people had to be so oppressed by members of my race but I owe you no apology because that ain't in my background.    You never did answer my suggestion either about what I think a fair thing to do about the flag should be, a vote by the people who pay taxes outta' the yahoo for that government to operate in our best interests.  The spontaneous order from our dear governor to take down the flag was, in my estimation, a cave-in on her part to oppression.  I know that the good ole' boys in that state capitol have given her fits since her inception there but I guess that is just the woman part of her showing thru.  This is not the first time that she has weakened in areas of utmost concern for our citizens and I'm sure she is on an irreversible path now.   But, would you support a vote either way if the people were asked to take a vote on whether the flag came down or not?  I will support any fair judgement by way of a vote by the citizens.  Until that happens, I remain on the side of leaving the flag where it is.  I can almost tell you that it is coming down but it has a place in my yard and always will be a symbol of what poor farmers, white and black, had to suffer at the whims of the powerful.

If you're past that time why do you still want to wave that flag?

Quote from: carlb on June 30, 2015, 04:09:30 PM
mdgiles is blinded on these issues. That flag represents the spirit of the REBEL to the southerner. Too many blacks, pushed by white libs have twisted the meaning of that flag to serve their political purposes. Suddenly, what the small minority have turned the flag into is vastly more important than what it really means to you or the vast majority of southerners.

I guess this is the world the libtard would like us to embrace:

Walmart refuses to bake Confederate flag cake for man, but makes him ISIS cake



I posted this before walks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q7ePFollQQE

Uh no. The flag has always meant the oppression of blacks in one way or another. And I'll ask the same question I always ask, but never get an answer to: What particular right did thy have in the Confederacy, that they didn't ALREADY have in the Union.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 30, 2015, 01:01:41 PM
Which part of the secession documents do you fail to understand? Even if you didn't own any slaves you were fighting for the right of others to own them. If you don't understand that you had no idea of why you were fighting, What right did the Confederacy want that the Union didn't have.

Awww yes, the lie about the war being about slavery. It was not! It was about secession, and nothing else, the North was willing to sacrifice it's own slavery in order to keep the South from seceeding.

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]

When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. �African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,� The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).

I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and was starting a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner. The historian Joanne Pope Melish, who has written a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England, recalls how it was possible to read American history textbooks at the high school level and never know that there was such a thing as a slave north of the Mason-Dixon Line:

"In Connecticut in the 1950s, when I was growing up, the only slavery discussed in my history textbook was southern; New Englanders had marched south to end slavery. It was in Rhode Island, where I lived after 1964, that I first stumbled across an obscure reference to local slavery, but almost no one I asked knew anything about it. Members of the historical society did, but they assured me that slavery in Rhode Island had been brief and benign, involving only the best families, who behaved with genteel kindness. They pointed me in the direction of several antiquarian histories, which said about the same thing. Some of the people of color I met knew more."[3]
Slavery in the North never approached the numbers of the South. It was, numerically, a drop in the bucket compared to the South. But the South, comparatively, was itself a drop in the bucket of New World slavery. Roughly a million slaves were brought from Africa to the New World by the Spanish and Portuguese before the first handful reached Virginia. Some 500,000 slaves were brought to the United States (or the colonies it was built from) in the history of the slave trade, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 10 million Africans forced to the Americas during that period

http://slavenorth.com/

The news and the lefties can boohoo about that all they want. Constitutional law is supreme in this nation. And it protects church's.

When we have a Congress and Justices that actually take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously, and keep their noses out of what a church is or isn't doing that is.

Quote from: Darth Fife on June 29, 2015, 09:28:49 AM
Actually, this may be a blessing in disguise. Tax exempt status is a Sword of Damocles hanging over every organization that has it. Don't pander to the Feds dictates? You lose your tax exempt status. The Government uses it to keep Churches and other non-profits in line.

Without a tax exempt status to protect, church will (or should) have more freedom to follow their teachings the way they believe they should i.e. prohibit homosexual marriage, etc.

Darth I was involved in the running of a 501 (c)3 at one time. And I know for a fact that a church's exempt status is not the same as the salvation army's. LOL

That said, I think it's improper, and possibly even un-Constitutional for the government to threaten to strip a church of tax exempt status if they won't marry gays.

THAT would be a violation of the first amendment. As well as a serious attack on our liberties too. Which whether we are for Obozodontcare or we are for or against gays marrying. ALL Americans shouldn't tolerate such tyranny from their own government.

Quote from: daidalos on July 02, 2015, 03:05:16 PM
Darth I was involved in the running of a 501 (c)3 at one time. And I know for a fact that a church's exempt status is not the same as the salvation army's. LOL

That said, I think it's improper, and possibly even un-Constitutional for the government to threaten to strip a church of tax exempt status if they won't marry gays.

THAT would be a violation of the first amendment. As well as a serious attack on our liberties too. Which whether we are for Obozodontcare or we are for or against gays marrying. ALL Americans shouldn't tolerate such tyranny from their own government.

It CAN'T happen (legally). See my post on the "Johnson Amendment" that got moved to the Constitution Forum

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2015, 10:05:45 AM
Awww yes, the lie about the war being about slavery. It was not! It was about secession, and nothing else, the North was willing to sacrifice it's own slavery in order to keep the South from seceeding.

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]

When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. �African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,� The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).

I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and was starting a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner. The historian Joanne Pope Melish, who has written a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England, recalls how it was possible to read American history textbooks at the high school level and never know that there was such a thing as a slave north of the Mason-Dixon Line:

"In Connecticut in the 1950s, when I was growing up, the only slavery discussed in my history textbook was southern; New Englanders had marched south to end slavery. It was in Rhode Island, where I lived after 1964, that I first stumbled across an obscure reference to local slavery, but almost no one I asked knew anything about it. Members of the historical society did, but they assured me that slavery in Rhode Island had been brief and benign, involving only the best families, who behaved with genteel kindness. They pointed me in the direction of several antiquarian histories, which said about the same thing. Some of the people of color I met knew more."[3]
Slavery in the North never approached the numbers of the South. It was, numerically, a drop in the bucket compared to the South. But the South, comparatively, was itself a drop in the bucket of New World slavery. Roughly a million slaves were brought from Africa to the New World by the Spanish and Portuguese before the first handful reached Virginia. Some 500,000 slaves were brought to the United States (or the colonies it was built from) in the history of the slave trade, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 10 million Africans forced to the Americas during that period

http://slavenorth.com/

I'm damned sick and tired of the stupid fucking lie that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It might not have started that way for the North, but it was damn sure ALWAYS about slavery to the South. Again READ THE DAMN SECESSION DOCUMENTS THAT THE SOUTHERNERS WROTE. And the Republican Party was specifically founded to STOP THE EXPANSION OF SLAVERY. Slavery was long gone in the North by the time of the Civil War. Anyone who doesn't know that - or pretends to not know that - should STFU about the subject. If the War wasn't about slavery, why did the South's chances of foreign recognition end with the Emancipation Proclamation. And pointing to slavery in other parts of the world also misses the point. THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT IN AMERICA. Not any other part of the world. The Civil War had to do with slavery in America. Not Brazil. Not the Sugar Islands. Not Ancient Rome. Not Great Britain of 20 years earlier. Last but not least, why do people who supposedly believe in liberty keep trying to justify slavery or it's symbols?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2015, 03:19:46 PM
I'm damned sick and tired of the stupid fucking lie that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It might not have started that way for the North, but it was damn sure ALWAYS about slavery to the South. Again READ THE DAMN SECESSION DOCUMENTS THAT THE SOUTHERNERS WROTE. And the Republican Party was specifically founded to STOP THE EXPANSION OF SLAVERY. Slavery was long gone in the North by the time of the Civil War. Anyone who doesn't know that - or pretends to not know that - should STFU about the subject. If the War wasn't about slavery, why did the South's chances of foreign recognition end with the Emancipation Proclamation. And pointing to slavery in other parts of the world also misses the point. THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT IN AMERICA. Not any other part of the world. The Civil War had to do with slavery in America. Not Brazil. Not the Sugar Islands. Not Ancient Rome. Not Great Britain of 20 years earlier. Last but not least, why do people who supposedly believe in liberty keep trying to justify slavery or it's symbols?

You are lumping a few proslavery states in with the rest, while for many, it was about freedom from the North.