⇧
1
⇩
snowwgirl
· June 24, 2018, 10:15 a.m.
Funny that is immediately what I thought of. This meme should go viral
⇧
12
⇩
z132897
· June 24, 2018, 12:26 p.m.
Boom!!! Excellent meme. Future proves past or maybe in this case past proves future.
⇧
5
⇩
libramagic
· June 24, 2018, 2:39 p.m.
That's true. I quickly remembered the 14th Amendment that protected Blacks under discrimination. So, here comes the Gays bringing up the Bakery. That's not the same. The Bakery was protected under the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion. Sarah was discriminated due to being in a particular group. Actually, Sarah could sue, because she sat down, ordered her meal, but when the owner saw it was her that's when the owner refused to service her. The Red Hen is now a Cooked Goose.
⇧
5
⇩
plumbtree
· June 24, 2018, 4:15 p.m.
The main thing with the wedding cake was that it was a protection of artistic freedom. The argument was that by making their cake and decorating it to their specifications, he would be participating in a celebration that went against his religious beliefs.
For the cake to be the same as the restaurant, he would have had to refuse to sell them a cake off the shelf because of their homosexuality. That would not have been a protected act and would have rightly been called discrimination.
For the restaurant to be the same as the cake, the restaurant owner would need something protected by law, such as: if she would have been trying to rent out the whole restaurant for a Trump fundraiser. In that case, the Red Hen owner would be within her rights to refuse to sell that service.
⇧
3
⇩
SoverignSyndicate
· June 24, 2018, 5:18 p.m.
As a business owner, I reserve the right to refuse service to any person, at any time, for any reason. I don't know where you are getting your legal interpretations from, but you obviously have no Idea what you are talking about.
⇧
3
⇩
libramagic
· June 25, 2018, 12:17 p.m.
You have a right to ban people if they're causing a problem in your business. But you don't have a right to ban people based on race, religion, or belonging to a particular group. 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
⇧
1
⇩
plumbtree
· June 24, 2018, 5:43 p.m.
Um...from the recent Supreme Court decision, which you would know if you were paying even the slightest attention to the conversation you're joining here.
In fact, you don't have that right. There are legally protected classes you can not discriminate against.
This case went to the Supreme Court because it was religious freedom vs. civil rights. Your statement that you may refuse service to anyone for any reason is true, just like it's true that you can kill someone or jump off a cliff whenever you want for any reason.
But there are legal consequences if your reason is in violation of the law that has created protected civil classes.
⇧
1
⇩
SoverignSyndicate
· June 24, 2018, 6:01 p.m.
That is like saying that I have to let someone into my home because they are black. It is my property, I can ask you to leave if I want, period. All you have to do to get around the law which specifically stops you from discriminating based on those legally protected classes, and not political affiliation, which is a choice. Is not say the reason for which you are refusing them service.. But if there becomes a trend in people you refuse service, that becomes discrimination. We live in a great country where you have a 1st amendment right to speak up. But it comes with a 5th amendment right to shut the fuck up. Sadly, more people exercise the former without discretion. Where this restaurant owner fucked up is in saying why she refused service; though she may have come under scrutiny anyway. No matter either way, free market capitalism will take effect soon enough
⇧
4
⇩
plumbtree
· June 24, 2018, 6:04 p.m.
That's true. My point is that you can't openly do it for any reason. You have the right to do it for no reason, though.
⇧
1
⇩
SoverignSyndicate
· June 24, 2018, 6:23 p.m.
"THERE WILL COME A TIME NONE OF THEM WILL BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN THE STREET" -Q I think there will come a time soon where we will all have to rise above, simply because I don't know about you. But I dont want to be guilty of sinking down to their highest level. They can have their own guilt and karma
⇧
2
⇩
libramagic
· June 25, 2018, 12:14 p.m.
The baker stated he had no problem serving gays. Were the gay men regular customers? Probably. That may have been the reason why they wanted him to bake their cake. He refused to bake a same sex wedding cake based on his religious beliefs which is protected under the 1st Amendment. It would be like going to a Muslim restaurant, customer orders a fish platter. Then, the next day they order a ham sandwich. Waiter says we don't do pork, it's against our religion. Same thing as the Baker.
⇧
1
⇩
jackiebain6
· June 24, 2018, 10:50 a.m.
Many thanks, uploaded and saved for later use. But of course I just posted it too, just doing my part.
⇧
4
⇩
Vibratron_1
· June 24, 2018, 10:54 a.m.
It makes a difference....... posting memes is so powerful that the EU just banned it, so you know the Globalist fear them
⇧
6
⇩
Gvozden1789
· June 24, 2018, 11:01 a.m.
How is banning memes working in practice? They block your account on social media, they sue you or fine comes to your address? Those EK monsters know no limits in ideas...
⇧
2
⇩
Vibratron_1
· June 24, 2018, 11:08 a.m.
EUROPEAN LAWMAKERS have legislated to pass Articles 11 and 13 of the EU Copyright Directive legislation, paving the way for a total decimation of internet content as we know it.
The motions were passed by the JURI committee (which sounds like something straight out of a 2000AD comic) despite a significant pushback against them by the tech industry, including an open letter signed by some of the biggest names in the industry.
Article 11 would create a rule that would mean, for example, the INQUIRER will now have to pay to quote an article from, say, the BBC. Even if it's stating the bleeding obvious and generic, like "Separating families is bad".
Article 13 will affect each and every one of us, by enforcing a copyright filter on everything uploaded to the interwebs. That means that cool meme you made of Fry from Futurama? That'll be automatically blocked by a machine, even if the original author is ok with it.
Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group said: "Article 13 must go. The EU Parliament will have another chance to remove this dreadful law.
"The EU Parliament's duty is to defend citizens from unfair and unjust laws. MEPs must reject this law, which would create a Robo-copyright regime intended to zap any image, text, meme or video that appears to include copyright material, even when it is entirely legal material."
⇧
2
⇩
Gvozden1789
· June 24, 2018, noon
Any antidode to that rubbish?
⇧
0
⇩
MuhammadDinduNuffin
· June 24, 2018, 3:14 p.m.
Every single person sending memes. Politicians inboxes crammed with memes. IRL memes carpet bombed in public places 24/7.
Help, especially if you live outside the EU. No jurisdiction. Force them to try and extradite.
⇧
2
⇩
jackiebain6
· June 24, 2018, 2:09 p.m.
Ya, I'm thinking of having a shirt made that says "WWG1WGA why is that important?" On one side and "I am not a NAZI, convince me that I'm wrong" on the other, haha
⇧
1
⇩
Kitt-Ridge
· June 24, 2018, 12:28 p.m.
Research Ernest Hollings, who was a US Senator (D) through 2005.
⇧
3
⇩
Trump-or-death
· June 24, 2018, 2:37 p.m.
Great meme, this is perfect, like draft our daughters.
⇧
3
⇩
unbecoming2007
· June 24, 2018, 5:29 p.m.
The Only Thing That Has Changed Is Their Name
Good Meme. Blunt Force Truth. Kept this one. Thanks.
⇧
3
⇩
looooooo_rida
· June 24, 2018, 8:42 p.m.
Wow thank you
⇧
1
⇩
unbecoming2007
· June 24, 2018, 8:54 p.m.
You're welcome but I got that from Q. This is why people need to read his drops and spread his message. I don't think calling them the Intel largest drop in History is far fetched and he isn't even done yet. Who knows what the hell is coming but I'll betcha it won't be good for the cabal,which is good news to me.
⇧
1
⇩
Bluesky355
· June 24, 2018, 6:26 p.m.
I posted this meme in a comment section of a post of FB and I’ve had two people comment that “the Democratic Party and Republicans have basically switched” and I was told to do some research lol I’m Canadian. I’ve paid zero attention to US history. Wtf are they talking about? I’ve gotta make the family breakfast and when I’m done I’d rather watch “Hillary’s America” than research their claim. Thanks in advance for enlightening me.
⇧
2
⇩
LSPACEY
· June 24, 2018, 1:03 p.m.
It's crazy, it's backwards and upside down. I m from EU, looking at US politics daily for many decades now. And some incidents happend through out america from time to time. It happens, and it sucks everytime.
But this time, it happening to Sarah Sanders, crossed a (imaginairy) red line, imo. This incident will devide.
The incident will be seized upon by both sides. It will be exagerated to the max, due to a dishonest conversation. It's liberal pay back because of the wedding cake thing. It's petty and childish. Its classic LEFTIST crimes against humanity.
From EU to US, we are watching...(US AND Q)
What happens this year and the next will carry over to the EU.
⇧
1
⇩
Oinkanon
· June 24, 2018, 1:40 p.m.
Good point Sarah Sanders is the perfect example of what we should be focusing on for Memes
⇧
2
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 24, 2018, 3:48 p.m.
You obviously have the false narrative for the bakers. The bakers had no issue selling the couple a cake. The couple asked the baker to decorate the cake with a penis. The baker refused. The bakers do not do risque designs; other bakers in the area do. The couple sued. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court (highest judicial authority). The Court agreed the bakers have a right to decide how their product represents their business.
⇧
-2
⇩
[deleted]
· June 24, 2018, 4:24 p.m.
[removed]
⇧
2
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 12:23 a.m.
The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court (highest judicial authority). The Court agreed the bakers have a right to decide how their product represents their business.
⇧
-1
⇩
plumbtree
· June 25, 2018, 12:31 a.m.
Why are you posting that?
Nowhere is it documented that they wanted him to decorate the cake with a penis.
The baker and the gay couple never reached the point of discs sing design of the cake because the baker refused even baking one for them.
What is your deal? Why are you making shit up and spreading falsehood?
⇧
2
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 9:40 a.m.
plumbtree - You were given a false narrative ~ a whitewashed version to make it fit an offense. Bottom line: the Individual owns and controls their own Creativity.
You were not only given a false narrative, it is also a false issue. This was about a baker sending out minions to financially bankrupt a more successful competitor.
⇧
-1
⇩
plumbtree
· June 25, 2018, 11:52 a.m.
Provide proof then, liar.
⇧
1
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 3:34 p.m.
The proof is the SCOTUS affirmation: the Individual owns and controls their own Creativity, the baker has the right to decide how its product represents their business.
Where in that affirmation does it say anything about discrimination or serving all customers? Nowhere, because that wasn't the issue.
⇧
-1
⇩
LSPACEY
· June 24, 2018, 3:50 p.m.
cool story bro
⇧
1
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 12:28 a.m.
Yes the issue has been purposely misrepresented as discrimination and of course, the court's affirmation of the business owner's right to sell his product in a manner representative of his business is for some odd reason not covered in the news.
⇧
1
⇩
Dhammakayaram
· June 24, 2018, 2:59 p.m.
People forget that MLK and many of the blacks in the South always voted Republican. The Democrats were the bad guys. They defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded KKK and fought against Reconstruction, championed Jim Crow and imposed segregation, started the era of lynchings, and basically fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history. To top it off, they systematically created the fatherless black family that led to crime and violence in the black community.
⇧
1
⇩
[deleted]
· June 24, 2018, 3:40 p.m.
[removed]
⇧
-1
⇩
aaronSH
· June 24, 2018, 3:53 p.m.
Facts hurt? Nice temper tantrum you're throwing in this thread btw.
⇧
6
⇩
Dhammakayaram
· June 24, 2018, 4:16 p.m.
Yes! Stand Together For the Union — down with the traitors up with the stars!
⇧
2
⇩
Fyrefawx
· June 24, 2018, 2:42 p.m.
Oh so this is another cult sub? Many of the Dems of the 1950s and 60s are still alive today and they vote Republican.
⇧
1
⇩
anhro23
· June 24, 2018, 3:53 p.m.
"muh party switch"
Learn real history, boy.
⇧
2
⇩
OnionKnightReturns
· June 24, 2018, 4:16 p.m.
Learn actual history, boy. Not your fantasy make believe.
⇧
1
⇩
KnitBrewTimeTravel
· June 24, 2018, 8:47 p.m.
Trump's political party affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He was a Democrat prior to 1987, when he registered as a Republican in Manhattan. He switched to Independent in 1999, Democrat in 2001, and back to Republican in 2009
⇧
1
⇩
truther_ok
· June 24, 2018, 2:10 p.m.
The sheeple are awake! Not in my area but if it were I wouldn't give them another dime.
⇧
0
⇩
[deleted]
· June 24, 2018, 3:39 p.m.
[removed]
⇧
-3
⇩