Invite Friends

Topic: Religion

Results in this view: Y-breaks Rules 13% - Convince Me 17% - N-private Land 70%
Picture?type=square
  • 9
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 33
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner No proselytization allowed but Jesus was a good guy but I hate when hypocritical Trump supporters the like politicize a holy man like him. He was a Democrat for sure!
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman whether you are offended or not why is this not protected by free speech?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner I am not offended by it. I'm offended by the hypocrisy of it and the fascism of it!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman dude its private property , they can be as hypocritical as they want to be
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner Not really bro and why are you defending their crime spree?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman what crime spree?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner Jesus would breathe on the people trying to display it in order to destroy them like he will destroy the Antichrist: 2 Thessalonians 2:8
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman hey, fredom of relgion, no one knows if there even is a god, and no one really knows what jesus would do
The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 to 5. The discourse is fairly brief, and begins by warning his followers of the dangers of judging others, stating that they too would be judged by the same standard. The Sermon on the Plain has a similar passage in Luke 6:37–42.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kevin Basner Why do you defend thee? Where hast thy brain befallen?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Matthew 7:1-3

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument,[citation needed] name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.[1]

Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris It is not protected by free speech, because this is a private hoa not the government.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yes but still private agencies should respect free speech even if they dont have to legally freedom of religion is sacrosant
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I agree they should, but they don't have to. Or shouldn't have to.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman so thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shall not commit adultery
just suggestions?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dude, not everyone is Christian. In a secular private contract, IF you agree to not doing something you don't do it. You have a choice, if you don't like the HOA rules then don't buy a house in a neighborhood that has an HOA with those rules.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman again i refer you to the doctine of unconciounability in a contract
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris English please? If you can sign or not sign a contract and can buy a house elsewhere, then it is not coercive. You read the contract and if you agree you buy the house and follow the contracts guidelines. If you don't like the contract, then you don't buy the house.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Anyone can say no to a contract, unless government forces you too.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris They signed the Homeowner agreement, so if they violated it, then it is on them. They need to move to a neighborhood without a HOA. If it violated nothing and only offended the neighbor, then screw the neighbor.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman okay you make good points i mostly agere but legally cant a HOA be unconcionable
The leading case[citation needed] for unconscionability in the United States is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.,[2] in which the defendant, a retail furniture store, sold multiple items to a customer from 1957 to 1962. The extended credit contract was written so that none of the furniture was considered to be purchased until all of it was paid for. When the plaintiff defaulted and failed to make payments on the last item of furniture, the furniture store attempted to repossess all of the furniture sold since 1957, not just the last item. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower court for trial to determine further facts, but held that the contract could be considered unconscionable and negated if it was procured due to a gross inequality of bargaining power.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris That has more to do with usury, like when all societies forbid it, as they should, because the person borrowing the money is at a disadvantage where they can't pay it back ever if the interest is to high, or the terms to complicated.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The contract was tying all purchases together, when they should have had each one separate. This has nothing to do with this case.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i dont like laws that restrict free speech even if it is a prvate contract
its their property and their relgious freedom is restricted
i'm confused why you support this because its private? what difference does that make
why is that legal and illegal when the govt does it?
what a pile of bs
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman isnt usury laws the reason jews got so rich?
personally i dont blame the jews
its just good business
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Billy, I don't like laws that restrict free speech either. A HOA doesn't have laws, they have rules. I don't like private rules that restrict speech either. That is why I do not belong to an HOA. When you sign a contract limiting your speech, then you are bound to it, UNLESS you were coerced.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman signing a contract is a form of coercion Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dude, I am not for private abuse, but when you agree to something it is biding. And Usury is corrupt business. It makes it so the borrower is never able to pay the debt off. And the bible forbids usury.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Signing a contract is NOT a form of coercion, if one is not coerced to sign it.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman sure it can be if you have no real choice
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Unless you are in a country where you have no rights, then you do not have to sign a contract, unless it is the government. They will force you.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You always have a choice, unless it is with government.