"J Burns" wrote in message news:mnfnpg$ag2$1@dont-

stuff snipped

At the end, Lee recommended enlisting blacks so they wouldn't join the
Union Army as it came through. It was authorized March 13, 1865, without
the incentive of freedom. Richmond fell March 25.
Some had been enlisted, but it's doubtful that any were armed and
trained by then.

Glad you pointed that out. Slaves allegedly fighting for the South was just
one more instance of revisionist history. Everything I've read on the
subject says it's a claim that never had any proof to back it up. As you
point out, the very idea of doing it didn't occur until so late in the war
that it was never implemented. Yet it keeps turning up in the claims people
make. Think of the common sense aspect of it: Would you give a gun to a
man that you owned while all around you there was a war going on to free
such men? Southerners lived in perpetual fear of slave revolts. Arming
them seems a little hard to believe in light of that constant fear.

I guess my ancestor was too understanding to punish him because he kept
running away but always stayed close enough that he knew he'd be
returned. My ancestor was afraid Lord Dunmore would talk him into
joining the British Army for the promise of freedom.

As you noted before, incentives are lacking in the slave as Rebel scenario.
They weren't going to gain their freedom by fighting for their masters. The
oft-repeated claims that slaves fought for the South seems to be a case of
testing gullibility limits. On both sides of the issue.

Whether or not Dunmore was sincere, my ancestor sincerely intended to
free the slave when he learned the craft. He knew that except for menial
tasks, a productive relationship with labor required the incentive of
pay. Jefferson and Lee couldn't make ends meet because they didn't
understand that.

Your comments about your ancestors and the runaway slave problem touches on
one of the little discussed issues of the Civil War - The Fugitive Slave
Act. States like Texas were ****ed that many Northern states had passed
laws that attempted to circumvent the recovery of fugitive slaves.

Ironically, Texas did not believe the Northern states had the right to trump
Federal laws (at least those that benefited them), so it's hard to believe
that the South's motive for war was about States' Rights. That's just
revisionist history. I can't blame them, though. After all, defending
States' Rights seems a whole more civilized and principled than defending
the rights to steal the labor of enslaved human beings. Doesn't sound so
noble expressed that way. But in nearly every secession statement at the
start of the war, slavery was the number one issue. Common sense says it
was because its abolition threatened the entire economic model of the region
for Southerners whether they owned slaves or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugiti...ve_Act_of_1850

Many Northern states wanted to circumvent the Fugitive Slave Act. Some
jurisdictions passed "personal liberty laws", mandating a jury trial before
alleged fugitive slaves could be moved; others forbade the use of local
jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of
alleged fugitive slaves. In some cases, juries refused to convict
individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law.

What's really interesting is that many of the same techniques used back then
are familiar to us today. States are trying to figure out ways to avoid
Federal mandates, people are forming groups to combat what they see is
legislated societal evil and groups are feeling treated unfairly by a biased
government and many Texans *still* want to leave the Union. The more things
change, the more they stay the same. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"J Burns" wrote in message news:mnfnpg$ag2

fascinating stuff snipped about runaway slaves

Whether or not Dunmore was sincere, my ancestor sincerely intended to
free the slave when he learned the craft. He knew that except for menial
tasks, a productive relationship with labor required the incentive of
pay. Jefferson and Lee couldn't make ends meet because they didn't
understand that.

That's an interesting observation and it's something that's at the heart of
the switchover from socialism we're seeing in China and the former USSR
countries. There have to be incentives built into any *successful* economic
system. Your comment reminded me about how incentives are also at play in
Greece:

Germany, in fact, understands moral hazard backward. The standard
definition refers to lenders; covering their losses will encourage them to
make bad loans again. And that is, let us not forget, exactly what Europe’s
creditors have done. Their financial assistance to Greece was deployed to
pay back German, French and other foreign banks and investors that held
Greek debt. It did Greece little if any good.
Greece has done little to address its endemic economic mismanagement. But it
has few incentives to do so if the fruits of economic improvements will flow
to its creditors.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/08...in-greece.html

Even if the Greeks managed to magically bring their economy up from the
basement to the level of the German economy, the benefits would flow to the
lenders, not the Greek people. If I were Greek, I wouldn't feel very
motivated to pay off loans that never should have been made in the first
place. All those loans did was postpone the day of reckoning.

Another editorial I read today said that in very many cases in the past
where sovereign debt threatened economic collapse, debt forgiveness (of a
pretty massive nature) was the only strategy that actually worked. The
Germans know this - they got enormous debt forgiveness after W.W.II but they
seem unwilling to remember or offer the same grace to others.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/08...in-greece.html

Nobody should understand this better than the Germans. It’s not just that
they benefited from the deal in 1953 [an agreement that effectively cut the
country’s debts to its foreign creditors in half], which underpinned Germany
’s postwar economic miracle.

There's another lesson from sovereign default: Twenty years earlier,
Germany defaulted on its debts from World War I, after undergoing a bout of
hyperinflation and economic depression that helped usher Hitler to power.

It's a time-honored variation of the famous "I got mine and I am closing the
door behind me" principle, it seems. What's scary is just how often the
"moral hazard" claim extends these economic disasters which are finally
cured by massive debt forgiveness. The delays in getting to the tough
medicine invariably make the patient sicker.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was Governor
of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe ³About the latter end
of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the burden of a 160 tunes arrived at
Point-Comfort, the Comandors name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West
Indies one Mr Marmaduke an Englishman. � He brought not any thing but
20. and odd Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought
for victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery did
not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery and their
descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors owned Negro slaves. Of
course that's something a moonbat like you Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery legal? you
do remember that that's what happened...Legalized Slavery

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion? If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was Governor
of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe ³About the latter end
of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the burden of a 160 tunes arrived at
Point-Comfort, the Comandors name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West
Indies one Mr Marmaduke an Englishman. � He brought not any thing but
20. and odd Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought
for victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery did
not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery and their
descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors owned Negro slaves.. Of
course that's something a moonbat like you Malcom will never understand.. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery legal? you
do remember that that's what happened...Legalized Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom, you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks?

Do the Mormon's have a bible?

On 07/08/2015 01:18 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery legal? you
do remember that that's what happened...Legalized Slavery

I think some of my ancestors worked out of the slave market in Dublin.
Their preferred hunting ground was Britain. You could get top dollar for
a real blond in Rome. The sub-Saharan stuff were the economy models.

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping about.. o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

On 7/8/15 6:40 AM, Robert Green wrote:


Your comments about your ancestors and the runaway slave problem touches on
one of the little discussed issues of the Civil War - The Fugitive Slave
Act. States like Texas were ****ed that many Northern states had passed
laws that attempted to circumvent the recovery of fugitive slaves.

Ironically, Texas did not believe the Northern states had the right to trump
Federal laws (at least those that benefited them), so it's hard to believe
that the South's motive for war was about States' Rights. That's just
revisionist history. I can't blame them, though. After all, defending
States' Rights seems a whole more civilized and principled than defending
the rights to steal the labor of enslaved human beings. Doesn't sound so
noble expressed that way. But in nearly every secession statement at the
start of the war, slavery was the number one issue. Common sense says it
was because its abolition threatened the entire economic model of the region
for Southerners whether they owned slaves or not.


In 1835, an abolitionist smuggled one of the most beautiful, heroic
women in history to Texas to escape slavery in Connecticut.

Lorenzo de Zavala, the internationally renowned Mexican doctor, editor,
legislator, and author, championed American immigration to Texas. He and
others got land grants for a colony on Galveston Bay. Sam Houston, no
longer welcome among the Cherokees, got in on it. So did James Morgan
of North Carolina.

Morgan wanted to bring his 16 slaves to Texas as free labor in an
integrated community. Slave interests had other plans. Bring in slaves,
which was illegal. Plant cotton. Buy arms. When Mexican officials come
to free the slaves, raise hell in the American press. The US Army comes
in and annexes Texas. Plant lots of cotton and come into the union as 5
slaves states. With Arkansas, this would mean 36 slave senators against
24 free senators.

In 1831, Zavala's wife of 24 years died. He married Emily D. West, 22,
of Albany. In New York in October of 1835, Morgan signed papers
indenturing Emily D. West, but she was 20, six years younger than Mrs.
Zavala. The paper said she was from New Haven. Two New Haven
abolitionists signed as witnesses.

She was strikingly beautiful. Her intelligence and education impressed
people even more. Morgan said she was a mulatto from the West Indies,
but some said she looked like an American Indian.

There had been 6,000 slaves in Connecticut. Ownership appealed to the
vanity of doctors and clergymen, for example. Some were Indians, dating
back to the colonial system for providing foster care. By 1835, there
were only about 30 slaves, due to be released at 21.

A greedy owner would want to take a slave south to sell, instead. An
attractive young woman could fetch a high price from a man in Virginia,
but the Connecticut resident would face criminal prosecution at home.

New York allowed visitors and part-time residents to have slaves.
Traffic of people with slaves between New York and slave states would
have been routine. If the owner took her to New York just before she
turned 21 and returned alone to Connecticut after she was 21, he could
claim he'd released her.

If the law required her to be freed soon, but abolitionists gave her
documents with Mrs. Zavala's maiden name, apparently they'd learned that
her owner planned to sell into sexual bondage.

Morgan took her and her little brother, called Turner, by coach to
Pittsburgh, then downriver to New Orleans, where his sloop waited. She
must have been quite capable, for he put her in charge of his hotel.
Her brother went to work for a newspaper.

Houston caused the deaths of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis by making his
trip very leisurely when sent to relieve the Alamo. Outclassing Houston
militarily and politically, Crockett might have replaced him, had he
lived. Then Houston ordered the Texans to throw their cannons in the
river and retreat. Time after time, he vetoed action. Suspicion grew
that he was a traitor. If he foiled the revolution, Santa Anna could
make him governor.

A steamboat was waiting at Groce's Landing on the Brazos, and their
fortunes changed. Thomas Rusk was there with authorization to take
command if Houston refused to fight. It brought food. The Yellow Rose
had allegedly supervised the free blacks who had loaded it at Morgan's
Point. That was where her legend began. First bred by a Manhattan
lawyer in 1824, the yellow rose was known only in the New York area. It
must have been her nickname in Connecticut.

It also brought Yaggers. Unless you were Daniel Boone, the long rifle
was effective to 80 yards. It was slow to load, wouldn't take a bayonet,
and was a pathetic club. In the hands of the inventor, the British Baker
was effective at 200 yards. That made it legendary.

To get into a unit using the US M-1803, a soldier had to qualify at 300
yards! It was such an effective club that it had no bayonet, but the
elite who carried them, had tomahawks.

One reason for the accuracy was the use of paper patches instead of
leather. With closer tolerances, a soldier had to know his stuff to
avoid fouling it in battle. In 1817, an improved version of the yagger
used no patch at all, for even greater accuracy. There were 38,000 made,
but few were issued. In 1821, they were locked away in armories. Army
officials didn't like the idea of elite soldiers.

They were on marshy ground with their backs to a swollen river. Santa
Anna was nearby, and their tracks showed where they were. They seemed
very vulnerable, but instead of crossing, they trained for several days.
Morale improved.

At San Jacinto, when Mexican riflemen took cover in woods close to
Houston's camp, a company stepped into the open and sent them running
with a volley from their yaggers. When Mexican cavalry attacked with
sabers and lances, Texan cavalry suffered no losses stopping them with
empty yaggers. Who had trained them so well? Yaggers had been issued
only to a few elite units, and they'd been in mothballs 14 years. An
exceptional military adviser had arrived.

The boat was armored with cotton bales. Santa Anna's forces were along
the bank downstream. There was a scheme to put troops with yaggers
aboard, inflict devastating losses, and be in Harrisburg well ahead of
Santa Anna. Houston rejected the plan. His army made the slow
crossing and began the trek to Harrisburg. Santa Anna burned it before
they arrived. Suspicion of Houston continued to grow.

A barge of livestock and other food awaited the troops at San Jacinto.
They heard the Yellow Rose had been captured as she loaded it at
Morgan's Point. In fact, Morgan had told her and her brother to close
the hotel and catch a boat to Galveston. President Burnett had showed
up. She put him and his family safely aboard a boat. Maybe it was
overloaded, but she wasn't invited. A gallant Mexican colonel took her
and her brother into custody.

In the morning, Mexican cavalry rode up close enough to draw fire. They
let Turner off. Officers recounted that nobody consulted Houston after
that. Rusk and Wharton went off on a boat. When Rusk got back, he gave
the battle plan. Wharton didn't appear until the middle of the battle,
near one end of Santa Anna's line, the river behind him, screened by
trees and brush.

As Americans pursued Mexican troops into a gully, Houston stopped the
attack and rode in alone. He talked with Mexican officers and returned
unscathed. He was a traitor. His plan had gone awry and he was telling
Santa Anna how to escape. What other explanation is there?

Reaching the Mexican line, Americans with long rifles broke the stocks
off as instructed. After the Paoli Massacre in 1777, Anthony Wayne, the
greatest general of the Revolution, had told his riflemen to do that if
it ever happened again. At San Jacinto, the rebel Mexcan company on the
American left flank had been instructed to pin white cards to their
hats. In 1779, Washington had found Stony Point impregnable. Wayne had
his men pin white paper to their hats and walk in. Who would remember
these tricks in 1836?

Wayne had been poisoned to death 40 years ago, but an officer close to
him had been present in 1791, when 261 men had broken the stocks off
their rifles and fought their way out of a massacre three times worse
than Custer's Last Stand. He'd been called back to duty in 1808, to
command the first company equipped with yaggers. I've found him on the
road to Texas in December of 1835. In 1840, he turned up as a Cherokee
chief in Oklahoma. I believe he was the mastermind who directed Rusk and
Wharton.

If officers had listened to Houston, he would have brought defeat. Santa
Anna was a womanizer, but sleeping with a chick who wasn't white would
have damaged his reputation. He would have wanted to dine with her, for
the conversation and to learn about the attitudes of the rebels. He
would have assumed she was a slave who saw him as her liberator. He
would have trusted her.

She would have said they were afraid of execution, as at the Alamo and
Goliad. He would have confided that he and Houston intended to settle
the revolt peacefully and offer amnesty. She would have suggested
releasing her brother to tell them he treated prisoners well and
intended to grant amnesty. She would have instructed her brother instead
to tell Rusk that Houston was working for Santa Anna.

The song is thought to have been written shortly before the battle
because copies have turned up in the belongings of veterans. Unlike the
Civil War version, the original lyrics are moving. The author describes
himself as a darky and a soldier. Researchers thought a song written on
the eve of battle must have come from a folk tune, but no similar tune
has been discovered. It sounds like a marching tune. A professional
soldier might know marching songs not known to the public.

The penmanship is elegant, but the spelling is full of errors. I don't
think blacks were allowed to enlist in the regular army, but a commander
might have a trusted slave. Speaking for the commander, he'd have
indirect authority like a sergeant. He'd develop excellent penmanship
writing reports but wouldn't presume to write personal letters to the
sort of people who would be critical of spelling.

In the weeks before meeting the army at Groce's Landing, he and the
retired officer would probably have stayed at the hotel to meet with
political leaders and discuss strategy and logistics. With long
experience in training, he would have had lots of contact with company
captains at Groce's Landing.

When they began asking for copies of his song, he realized that if he
wrote his name, people who read it might realize he'd spend weeks at her
hotel and think the song meant she'd had an affair with a black man old
enough to be her grandfather. He gave only his initials, HBC, but he
dedicated the song to C. A. Jones.

The son of a freed slave from Charleston, Charles A. Jones attended
college in Connecticut. Then, while studying to be ordained an
Episcopal priest, he taught at the Mission School in Hartford, founded
to educate the slave children due to be freed at 21. He was brilliant,
going on to found an internationally renowned school. With so few slave
children left, he could have given her plenty of attention.

The victory made Houston governor. Most of the leaders in his army hated
him for the rest of their lives, but they kept his secret for the sake
of political stability. He started a whispering campaign to discredit
her. "Don't say I told you, but I won because the Yellow Rose was in his
tent driving him to distraction with sexual delights."

It's widely accepted but couldn't be true. Immediately after his
capture, Santa Anna had said he was dozing under a tree because his tent
was too hot. Houston's forces, too, were in the shade because it was
hot. He was at the line as soon as shooting started. Other Mexican
officers confirmed that.

Whether or not she had any African blood, the slave-holding culture
considered her black. Houston signed a law that any blacks who couldn't
prove they were free, would be enslaved. He must have done it in
Morgan's absence, for he didn't vouch for her. A judge did. She got a
passport identifying her as free.

She disappeared. A researcher turned her up in New York City on the 1840
census, when she was 25. He couldn't find her again. One assumes she
got married. Texans adored her, but I guess Houston's rumor drove her out.

The sheet music was finally published in 1858. Morgan, the only one who
was still alive of those in whose homes she'd stayed, was 70. She was
46. It said, "for pi*ano and guitar, composed and arranged ex*pressly
for Charles H. Brown by J. K."

The author uses only initials, but he must have been someone with inside
knowledge and not a pirate because, for the first time, the title
identifies the Yellow Rose as Emily D. West.

Brown was a music publisher near Memphis. That was a good distribution
point for a song about Texas, but instead of publishing, he turned the
copyright over to a New York publisher. Why let the royalties slip
through his fingers? Why not start it in the southwest, where it was
less likely to go unnoticed? Why include West's name in the title when
it was of no interest to the public?

I think it was published in New York to be sure Emily had access to it.
It would remind her that many in Texas remembered and loved her. She
could show it to her children to prove she was the Yellow Rose of Texas.

"J Burns" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I think it was published in New York to be sure Emily had access to it.
It would remind her that many in Texas remembered and loved her. She
could show it to her children to prove she was the Yellow Rose of Texas.

Interesting!

See

http://www.amaranthpublishing.com/yellow.htm

for

http://www.amaranthpublishing.com/Th...Of%20Texas.mp3

There's a yellow rose in Texas
That I am a going to see
No other darky knows her
No one only me

She cryed so when I left her
It like to broke my heart
And if I ever find her
We nevermore will part

And continues:

She's the sweetest rose of color
This darky ever knew
Her eyes are bright as diamonds
They sparkle like the dew

You may talk about dearest May
and sing of Rosa Lee
But the yellow rose of Texas
Beats the belles of Tennessee

In 1864 General Hood and the Texas Brigade fighting in Tennessee, were
defeated. His men retreated in such confusion they thought the war was over.
Many headed home, and a fourth stanza was added:

And now I'm going southward, for my heart is full of woe,
I'm going back to Georgia, to see my Uncle Joe.
You may talk about your Beauregard, and sing of Bobbie Lee,
But the gallant Hood of Texas played hell in Tennessee. [Chorus]

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service?

Because their convictions (i.e. racism) are so "deeply held." (Sarcasm
Alert!) That seems to be an extremely difficult to quantify standard some
want to apply to not only people, but corporations and with recent Supreme
Court decisions, seems to be picking up steam.

I am not sure when the Supreme Court left the rails, but when was the last
time you saw a corporation on its knees praying in Sunday Church? Or, as
the LW wags put it, if Corporations truly are people, why hasn't Texas
executed one yet?

We've reached an age where the Supreme Court no longer legislates in the
real world, but somewhere in outer space where money equals free speech, a
tax is not a tax, clauses they don't like are simply made to disappear, etc.
I'd almost prefer an activist court to a lunatic one that seems to spit out
decisions much like a slot machine, totally at random.

One thing that's always amazed me. Even primates in the jungle and
apparently some smart dogs know when they are given something, they are
expect to give something back in return. Even if it's just a stupid pet
trick.

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!

--
Bobby G.

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:25:39 AM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

You libs just want to dredge up anything, all the time, going
back hundreds of years to smear the USA and try to make it look
bad. Try comparing the USA to many other countries in the world
in the early 1800s. Just like today, the USA wasn't perfect, but
it was at the top of the list of places most people would want to be.

Oliver Stone, that pig, has a penchant for doing that, rewriting
history, like with his "Untold History of the USA). It consists
entirely of finding anything and everything that went wrong anywhere
in the world, and finding a way to blame it on the USA, sinister,
dark forces, etc. Forget about the tremendous good things, how
great the country really is, just concentrate on anything he can
find in a desperate attempt to bring down the USA. The same USA
that has allowed him to flourish and grow very wealthy. He should
try going to Russia and making some movies about them, see how that
works.

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:28:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service?

Because their convictions (i.e. racism) are so "deeply held." (Sarcasm
Alert!) That seems to be an extremely difficult to quantify standard some
want to apply to not only people, but corporations and with recent Supreme
Court decisions, seems to be picking up steam.

I am not sure when the Supreme Court left the rails, but when was the last
time you saw a corporation on its knees praying in Sunday Church? Or, as
the LW wags put it, if Corporations truly are people, why hasn't Texas
executed one yet?

We've reached an age where the Supreme Court no longer legislates in the
real world, but somewhere in outer space where money equals free speech, a
tax is not a tax, clauses they don't like are simply made to disappear, etc.
I'd almost prefer an activist court to a lunatic one that seems to spit out
decisions much like a slot machine, totally at random.

One thing that's always amazed me. Even primates in the jungle and
apparently some smart dogs know when they are given something, they are
expect to give something back in return. Even if it's just a stupid pet
trick.

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!

--
Bobby G.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to legislate was the job of Congress. Of course I can't leave out the states but The Three Branches of the federal government seem to be malfunctioning. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Puzzled Monster

On 07/09/2015 07:10 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to legislate was the job of Congress.

So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day

1. Its about taxation without representation: Taxation
is now in fact the redistribution of wealth in the name
of fairness. What charities once gave, €œentitlements€�
now take.

2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.


3. It was about unjust laws: They did not pass the
Bill of Rights to €œsee whats in it.€� It was
thoroughly debated before it was brought to a vote.

4. It was about owning firearms: Simply put, YOU are
the militia and government is the reason you need to
bear arms.


5. It was about seizure of property: Now it is okay
to seize your property for the common good. That is
a key tenant of socialism and communism.


KILL A COMMIE FOR CHRIST!
YAY!

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:28:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service?

Because their convictions (i.e. racism) are so "deeply held." (Sarcasm
Alert!) That seems to be an extremely difficult to quantify standard some
want to apply to not only people, but corporations and with recent Supreme
Court decisions, seems to be picking up steam.

I am not sure when the Supreme Court left the rails, but when was the last
time you saw a corporation on its knees praying in Sunday Church? Or, as
the LW wags put it, if Corporations truly are people, why hasn't Texas
executed one yet?

We've reached an age where the Supreme Court no longer legislates in the
real world, but somewhere in outer space where money equals free speech, a
tax is not a tax, clauses they don't like are simply made to disappear, etc.
I'd almost prefer an activist court to a lunatic one that seems to spit out
decisions much like a slot machine, totally at random.

One thing that's always amazed me. Even primates in the jungle and
apparently some smart dogs know when they are given something, they are
expect to give something back in return. Even if it's just a stupid pet
trick.

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!

--
Bobby G.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to legislate was the job of Congress. Of course I can't leave out The States but the Three Branches of the federal government seem to be malfunctioning. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Puzzled Monster

On 7/9/2015 8:04 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


I hope they appealed that crap?

--
Maggie

In article ,
trader_4 wrote:

You libs just want to dredge up anything, all the time, going
back hundreds of years to smear the USA and try to make it look
bad. Try comparing the USA to many other countries in the world
in the early 1800s. Just like today, the USA wasn't perfect, but
it was at the top of the list of places most people would want to be.

I see, you can use those 5 things liberals never remember, but when I
make the point that it wasn't all roses and these very same people
legalized slavery, somehow I'm trying to smear the USA. I love the way
you conservative rightard fascist love the first amendment but only for
speech you approve

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it

On 7/9/2015 2:11 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

--
Maggie

On 7/9/2015 10:35 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to legislate was the job of Congress. Of course I can't leave out The States but the Three Branches of the federal government seem to be malfunctioning. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Puzzled Monster


I'm a lot overwhelmed with moments that make me roll
my eyes and wonder what is going on with this nation.
There was one a couple years ago where the Supremes
struck down some provision and O just went ahead with
it.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:11:57 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it

I thought you had to own property to vote in those days? You can't leave that one out. There were pole taxes at one time and literacy tests to keep the uneducated from voting, a test to exclude dumb-asses is something really needed today. It may have been a mistake to allow women to vote because most of them vote for the male politician who's the most hansom and the least attractive woman because they hate the pretty ones. There is hope due the fact that more women are starting to pay attention to political party platforms. Some of my own ancestors were slaves under The Constitution but THEY GOT OVER IT. My ancestors were treated like crap when they got to this country but THEY GOT OVER IT. Slavery was outlawed in The United States 150 years ago by a Constitutional Amendment, when are Negro Americans going to GET OVER IT? So Malcontent, when are you going to get over your inability admit that slavery is illegal under The Constitution with all its wonderful amendments? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:11:57 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it

I thought you had to own property to vote in those days?


and strangely enough, women weren't allowed to own property

You can't leave that
one out. There were pole taxes at one time and literacy tests to keep the
uneducated from voting, a test to exclude dumb-asses is something really
needed today. It may have been a mistake to allow women to vote because most
of them vote for the male politician who's the most hansom and the least
attractive woman because they hate the pretty ones. There is hope due the
fact that more women are starting to pay attention to political party
platforms. Some of my own ancestors were slaves under The Constitution but
THEY GOT OVER IT. My ancestors were treated like crap when they got to this
country but THEY GOT OVER IT. Slavery was outlawed in The United States 150
years ago by a Constitutional Amendment, when are Negro Americans going to
GET OVER IT? So Malcontent, when are you going to get over your inability
admit that slavery is illegal under The Constitution with all its wonderful
amendments? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Slob Monster


I never denied that, I just pointed out that if you want liberals to
remember things, you rightards should also remember that the
Constitution legalized slavery. why does that bother you so much?

In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake. And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do, you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks. You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs. So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:15:37 -0700 (PDT), bob_villa
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks?

Do the Mormon's have a bible?

They have several books. They also USED to say blacks could not hold
the priesthood because of what the bible had to say about blacks. Many
other Christians also used to use the bible to justify their racism
against blacks.

On 07/09/2015 01:11 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Mind pointing out where?

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:26:22 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service?

Because their convictions (i.e. racism) are so "deeply held." (Sarcasm
Alert!) That seems to be an extremely difficult to quantify standard some
want to apply to not only people, but corporations and with recent Supreme
Court decisions, seems to be picking up steam.

I am not sure when the Supreme Court left the rails, but when was the last
time you saw a corporation on its knees praying in Sunday Church? Or, as
the LW wags put it, if Corporations truly are people, why hasn't Texas
executed one yet?

We've reached an age where the Supreme Court no longer legislates in the
real world, but somewhere in outer space where money equals free speech, a
tax is not a tax, clauses they don't like are simply made to disappear, etc.
I'd almost prefer an activist court to a lunatic one that seems to spit out
decisions much like a slot machine, totally at random.

One thing that's always amazed me. Even primates in the jungle and
apparently some smart dogs know when they are given something, they are
expect to give something back in return. Even if it's just a stupid pet
trick.

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!


Isn't it interesting how we all KNOW how human nature works and we all
know that if someone gives someone else a ****load of money they
expect something in return AND that they will GET something in return.
Yet our politicians would lie to our faces saying they aren't swayed
by all that money that is the lifeblood of their election to office.
If they will lie about something so patently obvious you know they
will lie about pretty much anything.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:04:55 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:



So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

+1

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:00:29 PM UTC-5, Malcom Malformed Turdmuncher wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:11:57 PM UTC-5, Malcom Goober Gobbler wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Dick Licker
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom Retarded Lib
wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom Moobat
wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
³About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it

I thought you had to own property to vote in those days?


and strangely enough, women weren't allowed to own property

You can't leave that
one out. There were pole taxes at one time and literacy tests to keep the
uneducated from voting, a test to exclude dumb-asses is something really
needed today. It may have been a mistake to allow women to vote because most
of them vote for the male politician who's the most hansom and the least
attractive woman because they hate the pretty ones. There is hope due the
fact that more women are starting to pay attention to political party
platforms. Some of my own ancestors were slaves under The Constitution but
THEY GOT OVER IT. My ancestors were treated like crap when they got to this
country but THEY GOT OVER IT. Slavery was outlawed in The United States 150
years ago by a Constitutional Amendment, when are Negro Americans going to
GET OVER IT? So Malcontent, when are you going to get over your inability
admit that slavery is illegal under The Constitution with all its wonderful
amendments? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Smart Monster


I never denied that, I just pointed out that if you want liberals to
remember things, you rightards should also remember that the
Constitution legalized slavery. why does that bother you so much?

The Constitution in 1787 was ambiguous when it came to slavery. It was neither pro nor con because those colonies which utilized large numbers of slaves would have rejected it if it prohibited slavery and there would have been no United States. It took an amendment to the Constitution in 1865 to categorically prohibit slavery. Your claim that The Constitution legalized slavery is a lie. The Dred Scott decision affirmed the fact that slaves were property and not persons. When The Constitution was drafted in 1787 Blacks were not considered to be citizens and the federal government had no jurisdiction over slavery. When you refer to me as a "rightard" does that mean you are a "leftard"? To me you are one of the Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks and I use the term because I don't want to leave anyone out and hurt their feelings. The fact that you write lies doesn't bother me because I expect it from your ilk. If you must know, I'm not a Republican, they disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me. I'm not a member of The Tea Party and I've never met a member. I'm not a member of any party or a wing that spins either way. Oh yea, I can post edit too. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Perceptive Monster

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 10:05:01 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

I would never serve a Black person, many of my friends are Black and cannibalism is a horrid illegal practice. I've heard they don't taste that good anyway. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Canibal Monster

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/9/2015 10:03 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake.

[cross-post removed]

Why would you want to force someone to bake a "gay cake"?


And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do, you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

News flash: People already do that - they avoid others they don't like.
Try as we might, we can't legislate how people think.


You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs.

Which religious beliefs?


So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

Businesses should not be forced to provide services to anyone. Patrons
are free to seek what they need from other businesses who will provide
what they need or want. It's called free enterprise.

--
Maggie

On 7/9/2015 10:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.


Everyone practices bigotry. Some people just end up being on the wrong
side of politically correct.

--
Maggie

On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?

--
Maggie