Christian businesses

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:04 am

Does anyone have any idea what a Christian business is, in a US jurisdiction? Can one include in the Articles of Association a clause saying "This company shall be governed according to Christian principles as interpreted by the Middletown Bible Church", for example?

And if the Articles of Association have no such clause, can it still be a Christian business?

And if it can be a Christian business, can another be an Islamic business in a US jurisdiction? Could it, for example, oblige all employees to pray at their workstation five times a day? Can another be a business espousing Satanism? Every Friday afternoon's the Shabbat, come naked, Satan's waiting for us?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. If it employs ten people it can be a Christian or Islamic or Satanist business but if it's the size of Microsoft it's not allowed to be, perhaps? A hundred? A thousand?

Mr Jindal, a Republican who is running for president, also sought to protect religious freedoms after the ruling.

"I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs," Mr Jindal said.

US gay marriage: Texas pushes back against ruling - BBC News

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:02 am

The line, such as it is, is wherever these dolts think that they can get away with drawing it.

I see a lot more lawyers making a lot more money before this all gets sorted out.

I would say that a business can only be called a "Christian Business" if they are in the business of providing specific Christian oriented products and services.

And for State employees, they should simply perform their duties, without regard for the sexual/racial/social orientation of the citizens to which they are employed to serve, or they should be relieved of their duties, to go find employment more suited to their bigoted lifestyle.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:29 am

As a short term stop gap measure.....I believe individuals should be allowed to object to supply any service on personal moral grounds..............as an individual only.

For instance the selling of tobacco or alcohol, but that they should consider the job specifications before starting, like the EU work time directive.

Whole departments or businesses should not be exempt from the law of the land.

Some people will take time to adjust......let them.....they will pass.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:37 am

Bruv;1481626 wrote: As a short term stop gap measure.....I believe individuals should be allowed to object to supply any service on personal moral grounds..............as an individual only.

I ain't serving her, she's one of those Lutherans innit. Bleedin' AntiChrists the whole lot, buggerit. Let one of them in the shop and I'll have to fumigate for a week, stands to reason. Shag anyone for a quid, Lutherans.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:54 am

spot;1481631 wrote: I ain't serving her, she's one of those Lutherans innit. Bleedin' AntiChrists the whole lot, buggerit. Let one of them in the shop and I'll have to fumigate for a week, stands to reason. Shag anyone for a quid, Lutherans.

I thought we were being serious.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:38 pm

Do we lived in a country which celebrates freedom of conscience. religious freedom?

Nobody refused to sell the homos a cake, they just didn't want to celebrate homosexually.

I don't blame those Americans for trying exercising their Constitutional Rights.

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:33 pm

tude dog;1481635 wrote: Do we lived in a country which celebrates freedom of conscience. religious freedom?

Nobody refused to sell the homos a cake, they just didn't want to celebrate homosexually.

I don't blame those Americans for trying exercising their Constitutional Rights.

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

How is making a wedding cake celebrating anything except a wedding. If they refused on relgious grounds because it was a mixed race couple would that be any different.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:41 pm

I'm not prepared to say where the line is drawn, but I do know where the lines will form on Friday afternoons, and there will be lots of Christians in those lines, dare I say mostly Christians will be forming those lines.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:57 pm

tude dog;1481635 wrote: Do we lived in a country which celebrates freedom of conscience. religious freedom?
Well no, to be brutally honest. You-all constrain your personal freedoms on the grounds of fairness and decency, otherwise a whole stack of you-all would be refusing to serve cakes to blacks too. Like you-all did back in the good old days before the law stopped you discriminating against them.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:16 pm

When I left home, my father wished me well and gave me these three pieces of advice, which I have always cherished:

"Son", he said...

1. "Never eat lunch at a place named 'Mom's'."

2. "Never play poker with a guy called 'Doc'."

3. "Never do business with a guy who keeps a Bible on his desk."

Thanks Dad!

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:54 pm

Mark Aspam;1481649 wrote: When I left home, my father wished me well and gave me these three pieces of advice, which I have always cherished:

"Son", he said...

1. "Never eat lunch at a place named 'Mom's'."

2. "Never play poker with a guy called 'Doc'."

3. "Never do business with a guy who keeps a Bible on his desk."

Thanks Dad!

My Dad said something along the same line, except he said never eat anywhere that had a sign advertising "Fine Food"

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:55 pm

tude dog;1481635 wrote: Do we lived in a country which celebrates freedom of conscience. religious freedom?

Nobody refused to sell the homos a cake, they just didn't want to celebrate homosexually.

I don't blame those Americans for trying exercising their Constitutional Rights.

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

Yeah, we always talk about religious freedom, as long as it is our religion that is free to do what we like. Everybody else is evil.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:43 am

tude dog;1481635 wrote: Do we lived in a country which celebrates freedom of conscience. religious freedom?

Nobody refused to sell the homos a cake, they just didn't want to celebrate homosexually.

I don't blame those Americans for trying exercising their Constitutional Rights.

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

The HOMOS??? Neanderthal is too good a word for you, KIKE, do you like that? I can say that, as I am a kike too. You've learned nothing from the Jewish experience, nothing, nada.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:03 am

AnneBoleyn;1481665 wrote: I can say that, as I am a kike too.Very very American, that word - it's so long since I last saw it I had to look it up to be sure. In England it was always Yid back when people behaved offensively. Now you'd need to be a skinhead or a football thug to say that. Antisemitism really is a minority practice these days over here. Obviously it still happens, yes, but it's very sidelined and considered very naff.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:41 am

spot;1481666 wrote: Very very American, that word - it's so long since I last saw it I had to look it up to be sure. In England it was always Yid back when people behaved offensively. Now you'd need to be a skinhead or a football thug to say that. Antisemitism really is a minority practice these days over here. Obviously it still happens, yes, but it's very sidelined and considered very naff.

Anti-semitism seems to be on the rise, here, along with anti-"just about everybody else"

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:55 am

A main ingredient of the cake would be the fruit. That that refuse to bake it provide the nuts.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:05 am

That'll be part of the imagery of America being a stir-fry, I expect. Or a fruit punch, I can never remember.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:29 am

spot;1481666 wrote: Very very American, that word - it's so long since I last saw it I had to look it up to be sure. In England it was always Yid back when people behaved offensively. Now you'd need to be a skinhead or a football thug to say that. Antisemitism really is a minority practice these days over here. Obviously it still happens, yes, but it's very sidelined and considered very naff.
Shomrim Jewish security group steps up patrols in London

Antisemitic attacks in UK at highest level ever recorded

Anti semitic football chants

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:36 am

The ironic thing is that it is the rise of Islam that has caused the increasing support for the various fascist groups, such as BNP / Britain First / National Front etc. Much as they choose to deny it in public, their common root is Nazism. The progression from there to Anti-Semitism is all too obvious.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:38 am

Bruv;1481676 wrote: Shomrim Jewish security group steps up patrols in London

Antisemitic attacks in UK at highest level ever recorded

Anti semitic football chants

Firstly, "Antisemitic attacks in UK at highest level ever recorded" is a slightly bogus phrase when the records only cover 21 years, don't you think.

Secondly, what's recorded as an "attack" is overwhelmingly verbal abuse, something that was endemic in the years before records began, as opposed to physical violence.

Thirdly, it's collated by a group with a significant bias.

I think what I wrote was entirely correct.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:03 am

I know nothing about Christian Businesses and don't personally know of any businesses in my locale that refer to themselves as such despite the fact that I live in some what of a Bible Belt part of California, however before I retired 25 years ago I was solicited many times to join the Christian Businessmen's Association. Being a Secular Humanist, I obviously declined.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:14 am

Being verbally abused is OK then ?

RT for another insignificantly biased view HERE

Remember Anelka ?

I would think thefts of iPads might have the same upward curve over the same time scale............because they were not worth counting previously ?

It is not an epidemic, but at what stage do we react to the low level but increasing incidents ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:28 am

Bruv;1481687 wrote: Being verbally abused is OK then ?

Of course not. My point is rather that back when antisemitism was rampant in the UK the abuse was far more often physical assault. How you can write off the past with "they were not worth counting previously" I have no idea.

Every incident should have a response. What I dislike is this pretense that things have worsened rather than improved. Noting that a biased organization reports bigger numbers while comparing eggs with oranges over a trivially short period is not a useful observation.

I think what I wrote was entirely correct.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:44 am

I think it's more a case of when Light Hearted Banter becomes Semetic / Racial / Sexist (insert appropriate 'ism') Abuse. We have all seen the typically Black / Jewish / Gay comedians making jokes about their particular 'minority', yet if anyone else were to use the same jokes, apart from not using original material, it wouldn't be tolerated as being Abusive. Only a matter of about 30 years ago, racist humour was perfectly acceptable (Rising Damp, Love Thy Neighbour, Til Us Do Part / In Sickness & In Health, etc). These days they are viewed with disdain. At which point did it change from being Family Viewing to Racial Abuse?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:11 pm

FourPart;1481690 wrote: I think it's more a case of when Light Hearted Banter becomes Semetic / Racial / Sexist (insert appropriate 'ism') Abuse. We have all seen the typically Black / Jewish / Gay comedians making jokes about their particular 'minority', yet if anyone else were to use the same jokes, apart from not using original material, it wouldn't be tolerated as being Abusive. Only a matter of about 30 years ago, racist humour was perfectly acceptable (Rising Damp, Love Thy Neighbour, Til Us Do Part / In Sickness & In Health, etc). These days they are viewed with disdain. At which point did it change from being Family Viewing to Racial Abuse?

I think you coulkd make a pretty good case that programmes like love thy neighbour, till death us do poart anmd rising damp went a long way to help make racism unacceptable in the UK that was rather the intent behind the programmes, well till death and love thy neighbour anyway.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:27 pm

FourPart;1481678 wrote: The ironic thing is that it is the rise of Islam that has caused the increasing support for the various fascist groups, such as BNP / Britain First / National Front etc. Much as they choose to deny it in public, their common root is Nazism. The progression from there to Anti-Semitism is all too obvious.

You mean Regression. Nothing progressive about it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:37 pm

spot;1481666 wrote: Very very American, that word - it's so long since I last saw it I had to look it up to be sure. In England it was always Yid back when people behaved offensively.

Yes, I know Yid, Sheeney, Christ Killer, Himey, Lamp Shade (shudder), Heeb, Money Grubber, Big Nose Kike, "You look like you've been slapped by a Yarmulke"---A TV star said that to Howard Stern, I heard her; Dirty Jew, "Where's your horns?" Seriously said to me out west when I was 13, etc.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:03 pm

I find it worrisome that citizens are compelled to work under duress of government pressure. I thought we were free of slavery and had rights of conscience.

Never mind.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:06 pm

spot;1481642 wrote: Well no, to be brutally honest. You-all constrain your personal freedoms on the grounds of fairness and decency, otherwise a whole stack of you-all would be refusing to serve cakes to blacks too. Like you-all did back in the good old days before the law stopped you discriminating against them.

cute

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:17 pm

LarsMac;1481651 wrote: Yeah, we always talk about religious freedom, as long as it is our religion that is free to do what we like. Everybody else is evil.

Speak for yourself buddy.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1481665 wrote: The HOMOS??? Neanderthal is too good a word for you, KIKE, do you like that? I can say that, as I am a kike too. You've learned nothing from the Jewish experience, nothing, nada.

Golly, I knew you would give me grief for that.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:31 pm

tude dog;1481755 wrote: cute

I'm often puzzled by your vocabulary. This is "cute" in the sense of "you're completely correct in every respect", I take it?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Homo simply means "Man" (as in Mankind - no sexism there). As with so many other words it is merely its misuse that has made it offensive.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:12 pm

FourPart;1481865 wrote: Homo simply means "Man" (as in Mankind - no sexism there). As with so many other words it is merely its misuse that has made it offensive.When I was in grade school and/or high school (can't remember which, possibly both, that was a long, long time ago) we had a lunch room where you could buy lunch or bring your own.

The local dairy packaged milk for lunchrooms in small half-pint cartons, which were labelled "HOMO MILK", the carton being too small for the word "homogenized".

We had a lot of fun with that.

NOW - here's a question - think about it - the first correct answer wins a free carton of Homo Milk:

In those days at the school cafeteria, one half-pint carton of milk cost FOUR cents. If you wanted two (lots of kids did) the price was TEN cents.

Why the difference?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:27 pm

Didn't they think smaller writing might be better?

Are you sure you have that memory correct, you admitted it was a long long time ago.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:39 pm

Bruv;1481871 wrote: 1. Didn't they think smaller writing might be better?

2. Are you sure you have that memory correct, you admitted it was a long long time ago.1. You would have to ask the dairy, it's even possible that they still do that, I haven't seen a half-pint milk carton in many years, though I'm pretty sure it's still packaged in half-pints for lunchrooms and possibly vending machines.

2. I probably remember it from high school because most grade school kids AT THAT TIME probably wouldn't have been aware of the double meaning. That it was labelled that way at that time I am absolutely certain, the guys who didn't buy it often kidding those who did.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:43 pm

Mark Aspam;1481649 wrote: When I left home, my father wished me well and gave me these three pieces of advice, which I have always cherished:

"Son", he said...

1. "Never eat lunch at a place named 'Mom's'."

2. "Never play poker with a guy called 'Doc'."

3. "Never do business with a guy who keeps a Bible on his desk."

Thanks Dad!
1. It's okay to eat breakfast or dinner at 'Mom's'?

2. I'm guessing this is a reference to Doc Holiday, meaning that you could end up dead playing cards with people named "Doc"?

3. This one's got me all tied up in knots.

Is dad saying:

A. that business people who purposely leave a bible in view are, in reality, dishonest non-christian types using it to deceive potential clients?

B. that Christians are usually dishonest business people?

C. that Christians are "bad" business people?

"Dads" might tend to become a bit frustrated with "Sons" like me?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:55 pm

LarsMac;1481650 wrote: My Dad said something along the same line, except he said never eat anywhere that had a sign advertising "Fine Food"Out of curiosity, I'm wondering how you took dad in this instance; was he saying that advertising "Fine Food" was a Freudian Slip of some sort meaning that the food was merely "fine" as opposed to, say, "excellent" or "awesome" or some other descriptor? Or was he saying that any business who would use "Fine Food" in their advertising would be purely dishonest?

Perhaps there's a third option I haven't considered?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:03 am

Bruv;1481871 wrote: Didn't they think smaller writing might be better?

Are you sure you have that memory correct, you admitted it was a long long time ago.Yes, I believe I recall smaller fonts used on my small milk carton using the longer *"homosexual", I mean "homogenized", though I could be mistaken.

*FOX News would have us believing, if Mark-A-Spam (or is it Mark-As-Pam?) is indeed correct, that this was "liberals" at work way back when softening us to the idea of open and public "homosex[t]uality" in the coming future. They'd be right, of course. Isn't that correct, Youknowwho?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:23 am

Mark Aspam;1481869 wrote: When I was in grade school and/or high school (can't remember which, possibly both, that was a long, long time ago) we had a lunch room where you could buy lunch or bring your own.

The local dairy packaged milk for lunchrooms in small half-pint cartons, which were labelled "HOMO MILK", the carton being too small for the word "homogenized".

We had a lot of fun with that.

NOW - here's a question - think about it - the first correct answer wins a free carton of Homo Milk:

In those days at the school cafeteria, one half-pint carton of milk cost FOUR cents. If you wanted two (lots of kids did) the price was TEN cents.

Why the difference?

There's 2 possible reasons.

1. Just as with the supermarkets, if you don't look at the unit price of things you can end up paying more when you've been conditioned into thinking you'll be saving money. A typical example is the 2 pack often costing more than the 1 pack, as at first seems to be the case with the milk.

2. There is another possibility. You say that the Â½ pint was 4c, but that it would cost 10c for 2. What you failed to mention (although obviously implied) was whether or not the latter was in a different sized carton or if it was 2 individual cartons. Also, if individual cartons if they were a 'multipack' (same as with supermarkets - multipacks can often cost more than the total of the individuals within them). Also, if it was purely a matter of being in a larger carton (i.e. 1 pint) whether it was by the same company.

If it was 2 individual ones, could you not simply buy them one at a time?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:40 am

FourPart;1481865 wrote: Homo simply means "Man" (as in Mankind - no sexism there). As with so many other words it is merely its misuse that has made it offensive.

In the context of homosexuality, "homo" comes from the greek word meaning "same" in contrast with "hetero" meaning "different".

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:49 am

spot;1481893 wrote: In the context of homosexuality, "homo" comes from the greek word meaning "same" in contrast with "hetero" meaning "different".

Conceded. I was always taught it meant 'Man', as with the evolutionary stages of Man - Homo-Sapien, Homo-Erectus, etc.

You learn something new every day.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:26 am

FourPart;1481890 wrote: There's 2 possible reasons.

1. Just as with the supermarkets, if you don't look at the unit price of things you can end up paying more when you've been conditioned into thinking you'll be saving money. A typical example is the 2 pack often costing more than the 1 pack, as at first seems to be the case with the milk.

2. There is another possibility. You say that the Â½ pint was 4c, but that it would cost 10c for 2. What you failed to mention (although obviously implied) was whether or not the latter was in a different sized carton or if it was 2 individual cartons. Also, if individual cartons if they were a 'multipack' (same as with supermarkets - multipacks can often cost more than the total of the individuals within them). Also, if it was purely a matter of being in a larger carton (i.e. 1 pint) whether it was by the same company.

If it was 2 individual ones, could you not simply buy them one at a time?Good guesses....well, FAIR guesses, but not even close. We're talking about identical, individual half-pint cartons of homogenized white milk, 4 cents for one, 10 cents for two.

Any other guesses? I know it's off the topic, but this is a real brain-teaser, and absolutely true AT THAT TIME - whether the same today I'm not sure. Hint: think SCHOOL - think EDUCATION - think HEALTH.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:30 am

Teaching you to work out which is the best deal - how not to get ripped off.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:44 am

There could have been a milk subsidy per child.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:46 am

Mark Aspam;1481902 wrote: Any other guesses? I know it's off the topic, but this is a real brain-teaser, and absolutely true AT THAT TIME - whether the same today I'm not sure. Hint: think SCHOOL - think EDUCATION - think HEALTH.

Do you know the answer ?

Are you just teasing us ?

Are you saying that two identical cartons bought at the counter at the same time cost more than the cost of one, doubled ?

Was your canteen run by the founders of Apple who were working on the theory that paying more for an object gave you some sort of credibility?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:21 am

spot;1481907 wrote: There could have been a milk subsidy per child.You are absolutely correct!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:16 am

Mark Aspam;1481916 wrote: You are absolutely correct!

Load of communists.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:28 am

Bruv;1481923 wrote: Load of communists.

They were bottles in my day. Glass half-pint bottles left out in the quad, snow or sunshine notwithstanding. I can remember ice in the milk and I can remember it being hot to drink but it was still there, still subsidized until that shocking woman became Minister of Education and the subsidy was withdrawn. It improved the health and well-being of my entire generation. Today's stunted throwbacks to Victorian Values have been deprived of the start in life society afforded me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:37 am

spot;1481924 wrote: They were bottles in my day. Glass half-pint bottles left out in the quad, snow or sunshine notwithstanding. I can remember ice in the milk and I can remember it being hot to drink but it was still there, still subsidized until that shocking woman became Minister of Education and the subsidy was withdrawn. It improved the health and well-being of my entire generation. Today's stunted throwbacks to Victorian Values have been deprived of the start in life society afforded me.

'They were bottles in my day'?

What sort of language is that ?

I too remember being served a third of a pint of milk in glass bottles, by milk monitors who would pierce the foil lids with pens or pencils for the waxen straw to fit through.

It was probably all the muck on the lids that helped immunise against all that ails modern kids.