Technically all Christians have a version of this. Though even in “Bible Churches” it is usually tempered by the second bit below, and processes of repentance and whatnot.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

I Corinthians 5

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18

As an aside, that Corinthians bit spells it out in plain-ass English that any “Christian” screaming at non-Christians about being gay, trans, or whatever either do not know their Bible or only use it when it supports the actions they already want to take.

As a second aside, it is kind of funny what one still remembers even after being out of the church for a couple decades.

I also stared at the picture for way too long before realizing there was a video down below.

It is important to be keep watch for government excess, even if we happen to agree with that specific example.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ― H.L. Mencken

Fair enough. That is definitely different in my eyes. If he’s knowingly sending illegal goods into the US, he is definitely breaking US law. It is far more reasonable to ask an extradition partner to scoop him up.

The dictation software we have is pretty shitty though.

As someone who used dictation software when said software needed to be trained first and also trained its users how to speak more clearly, it always amazes me when I hear people say things like this.

The problem is human speech is lazy and inaccurate. Half of the time I have to listen to a voice clip there are two or three words in the clip that are barely intelligible. If I don’t catch it by the third pass I stop and just guess by context. It is the same thing the AWESOME dictation software we have today does, but saves me the time and effort and gives the sender a chance to fix their own mumbles.

Of course, I’m one of those people whose voicemail message used to be, “Don’t leave me a message unless your call went straight to voicemail. I will see your missed call and call you back.”

Poaching endangered species is abhorrent and I have little sympathy for whatever happens to those who drive those species towards extinction for personal gain.

That said, nothing in this article (or another one I read) makes it sound like this guy is a US citizen, ever visited the US, or even shipped illegal products into the US. Shouldn’t Thailand or some world court be prosecuting him? This makes us sound like we think the US has jurisdiction over anyone in the world who would break our laws.

Yeah, I tried that line on my youth pastor when I young zealous member of a church. His response didn’t make me happy, but did give me the opportunity to look at how others saw my actions.

If you have to wear a BLM patch for people to realize that you believe black lives matter, then are you showing it with your actions?

Of course his version was about my cross necklace that wasn’t allowed at work (no jewelry at all) and Christ’s love.

The simple fact is that more often than not, you will have a bigger impact on those around you when you show them that black lives matter with your actions, rather than by wearing a BLM patch. The people around you have seen a BLM patch and already formed an opinion about what it means. Many people that need to see and hear the message the most will turn their brains off as soon as they see the logo.

Believe it or not it is possible to fully support a political ideal while still thinking corporations should stay out of politics.

For example, I think that cops taking money from people (Civil Asset Forfeiture) without charging them with a crime is amoral, unconstitutional (4th amendment), and un-American.

If, however, I saw a sign about it in my local McDonald’s I would definitely be like WTF?!?

Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

I don’t know if you really don’t know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?

I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don’t see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:

Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college’s logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.

If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.

Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.

dress code is also completely made up bullshit that has no reason to exist in the modern world

This is a ridiculous notion.

There are plenty of people that would show up to work without bathing while wearing sweatpants and teddy bear slippers if they were allowed. Source: I worked in a low-end call center fresh out of school and a good quarter of the people actually did dress like this most days.

Without a dress code a business has no grounds to address the situation.

If I walked into a new grocery chain or restaurant and everyone was dressed in dirty house clothes the best reaction I would have is to ask someone if this was a joke day. The more likely reaction would be just turning around and walking out.

I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow “Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples.” This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don’t have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.

Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.

The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.