The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Maybe we should make them wear large "G"s so it's easier for them to discriminate.
And again, Ben's logic says they should be allowed to not serve Blacks. No bigots here.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Ben why is this case relevant to the discussion that was going on in the thread before you shoved the thread onto this topic?
It's relevant because they are happening for the exact same reason. They are attempting to foist gay marriage on Texas whether Texas likes it or not. Unfortunately, this is a consequence that I WARNED ABOUT earlier with the abrogation of DOMA. It took about a week for them to prove me 100 percent right.
I believe you were one of the people who said you supported 'marriage being left to the states'. Well, either that was bull**** - or your position is in serious difficulty here.
Again - Reynolds points out why it's crucial for the United States to have one definition of marriage - the ultimate goal here is one definition - gay marriage, in every state. This is just one way to get r done. State by state.
Maybe you don't see it but I do.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
And again, Ben's logic says they should be allowed to not serve Blacks. No bigots here.
Should a club be allowed to refuse black people? White people? Absolutely. Does it make a club bigots if they exclude people of a particular race? Is it sexist to have a woman's sewing club? Or a men's club?
Again - freedom of association protects the business owner here.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
It nukes your carefully crafted distinction between 'private and public'.
No it doesn't. Just because it's bad for privately owned businesses to discriminate against blacks, jews or homosexuals doesn't mean it's the same as discrimination carried out by a government that blacks, jews and homosexuals are forced to pay taxes to.
Big difference between a club and a place of business. And for the record, I don't think clubs should be allowed to refuse black people either.
And no Freedom of association does not protect business owners here. What have the courts said on this?
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
And again, Ben's logic says they should be allowed to not serve Blacks. No bigots here.
What would be bigoted about arguing for Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and the massive overreach of the Commerce Clause it represents to be overturned?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Big difference between a club and a place of business. And for the record, I don't think clubs should be allowed to refuse black people either.
And no Freedom of association does not protect business owners here. What have the courts said on this?
I don't see the difference. The constitution is explicit, people have freedom of association. A club is legally allowed to exclude people, and if you don't think there aren't 'black only' clubs too, I see them all the time. There's a few in my neighbourhood here.
Does it bother me? No, not at all. Because that's what the business owner wants. It's freedom. I can go to another club. If a business owner is willing to restrict his profits in such a matter, than what should the state have to say about it? That it's wrong to have a 'blacks only club'?
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Actually I was waiting for Ben to cite cases that supported his opinion.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Also, Christian home builders should refuse to build homes that don't have railings on the roof:
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 22:8
When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
It's relevant because they are happening for the exact same reason.
You've clouded the issue. The issue before you changed it was if Texas or any other state were under any obligation at all to follow the directive of the Pentagon. (No State was and Sava's hysterical rant about it was ridiculous). You bringing the issue of the bakery and their "persecution" has allowed people to skate away from arguing for an unjustified increase in Federal power to bleating about protected classes and accusing opponents of wearing white sheets.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Should that baker refuse to serve Adulterers? Or those that Envy their neighbors?
It's certainly within his rights as a businessman. Perhaps not good for business, but it's his right if he choses to?
Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
Also active on WePlayCiv.
You've clouded the issue. The issue before you changed it was if Texas or any other state were under any obligation at all to follow the directive of the Pentagon. (No State was and Sava's hysterical rant about it was ridiculous). You bringing the issue of the bakery and their "persecution" has allowed people to skate away from arguing for an unjustified increase in Federal power to bleating about protected classes and accusing opponents of wearing white sheets.
Again - this is where we differ. Reynolds vs the United States explicitly states that preservation of the definition of marriage is a federal domain. That marriage is one man and one woman is compared with Habeaus Corpus and Trial by jury - that for an individual state to reject marriage as one man and one woman (fr'nstance to support polygamy), is no different then if they were to abrogate Habeaus Corpus or Trial by jury.
I just don't see how you affirm 'state right' to marriage and declaim things like Utah supporting polygamy. I don't see how you get there.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Those laws are not relevant Sava, and if you knew your theology/Bible you'd know why. In short: Jesus fullfilled the law and only those he upheld and was instituted by him and his apostles are valid for Christians.
Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
Also active on WePlayCiv.
Those laws are not relevant Sava, and if you knew your theology/Bible you'd know why. In short: Jesus fullfilled the law and only those he upheld and was instituted by him and his apostles are valid for Christians.
Um... Sava is mocking those who hold to Levitical laws against homosexuality (the Romans text that some anti-homosexuals use is far more troublesome to their cause than the more straightforward Leviticus texts).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Tweet
Comment