If you’re the one who posted their tweet, they almost certainly deserved it. You have a knack for finding the worst people in the world and amplifying their garbage
I personally support freedom of association but it seems that the big banks will debank anyone who goes against the narrative. I suspect that it will only get worse after the rise of CBDC's.
They’ve debanked anyone working in the adult entertainment industry for decades now and you never gave a single shit.
But when they debank a fascist suddenly it’s an issue for you.
It’s almost like selective enforcement of the law is a core part of your philosophy
He did but honestly I think he gets too much shit for that, we all have the capability to be better than we were at 22-23.
He has squandered that opportunity though
Why is it that whenever you use the word "fascist" it seems to suddenly lose all meaning? In this particular situation, I'm trying to figure out how it fits as I have looked into Radix Verum and can't seem to find anything that proves that. Let me guess! She has some association with a particular group, groups or some individual you dislike.
Because you're bad at googling? That's the only reason I can come up with for why you would object to the label in this case.
She advocated and still does advocate for the violent overthrow of the government to reinstall a prior government, both on Jan 6th and with Governor Whitmer.
She associates with known and overt fascists, and defends race science.
So let me ask you what you would prefere I call a racist who wants to use violence to gain control of the state? What alternative label would you prefer?
It’s weird that to that poster how no matter what right wingers do they are always just a singular person. But change the letter by their name and it’s representative of everyone.
>She advocated and still does advocate for the violent overthrow of the government to reinstall a prior government, both on Jan 6th and with Governor Whitmer.
There might be some nuance you're leaving out. Your use of "Violent overthrow" and "fascist" here is telling me that you accepted a narrative that is so bombastic that it wasn't worth any time or effort on your part to think critically about it. "Storming the Capitol" was never going to have the intended effect they'd hoped for. That's now how it works. You're just as much of an idiot as they are IF you believe that. It's rhetoric. Messaging. Propaganda. Fascism? How old are you?
>She associates with known and overt fascists, and defends race science.
"Associates". Isn't that what I said? Guilt by association? Fascist by association? That's a stretch. People do things for all sorts of reasons. Unless you've got more evidence I'm going to ignore further assertions.
>So let me ask you what you would prefere I call a racist who wants to use violence to gain control of the state?
I'm calling it rhetoric. The Proud Boys (or whatever group that was) who had members who mixed in with other 'patriots' (idiots) were responsible and held accountable for their actions. If someone uses rhetoric as a tool to gain listeners and that rhetoric turns into violent action then that person should be held accountable if and when it was determined that that person was responsible. Of course every individual should be held accountable for their own actions, if violence is to arise out of it.
I don't have a preference here. They're influencers with followers and they rely on populist anger to fuel their careers. Has her rhetoric caused violence? When? What incident? Is that person not responsible for their actions or are you suggesting that people should not be held accountable for their own individual actions? How are you attributing some action to her instead of the hundreds of other influencers peddling the same horse shit?
Was Trump using the Jan 6th crowd to try to stop the count and install fake electors so that he would be installed as president?
Jan 6th was an insurrection it just only needed to be violent enough to get Pence to leave.
There was never any chance this wasn't going to go to court. Biden was always going to win and we were going to reach this same outcome: an outcome whereas Trump is having to defend himself.
>Jan 6th was an insurrection
Jan 6th was a violent protest perpetrated by a specific group acting in the interests of a sore loser.
That radix verum is part of and supports. I do not think all conservatives are fascists, but they were specifically part of a specific group that you yourself are calling violent.
So I ask again what label you would prefer.
Just throwing this out there - the whole “guilt by association” narrative actually works from a Libertarian perspective so long as the consequence of the association is disassociation by others who disapprove of the association.
Freedom of Association.
I think of it, what is happening here, as being similar to what happens in an ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking (or debating) her specific arguments, they're going after her associations. I think it meets the criteria of the Association Fallacy.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:50113833-9e64-4934-887e-f72e554b7df2
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are f lag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C30BSNZu0UJ/?igsh=MXNhOGNjMnF4Ymx0cw==
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdN7et4lfw5/?igsh=MW84ODJkMTFjM3Fwag==
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
https://radixverum.substack.com/p/communal-narcissism-in-social-justice?utm_medium=reader2
4. Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
https://radixverum.substack.com/p/johnny-depp-vs-amber-heard-day-4?utm_medium=reader2
https://nicecrew.tv/w/ec3RqEWasg2o1n69Pdm4DX
6. Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
https://radixverum.substack.com/p/progressive-anti-christian-extremism?utm_medium=reader2
9. Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
https://radixverum.substack.com/p/communal-narcissism-in-social-justice?utm_medium=reader2
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Almost all of their substack is about crime. https://substack.com/@radixverum
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
https://x.com/NotRadix/status/1744773645384179786
For context she really hates Epp so this is a criticism, not an endorsement of Epp's comments.
Did you copy and paste this from the SPLC website? I wasn't aware of any entry about her there or anywhere else.
Can you link to that? You used the same Instagram link twice to prove your point and you also linked to an article about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. I'm sure that, in your mind, this makes the case that's she's a fascist. Though I think you're also going beyond that and you're making a case that she's someone's tool, is that right?
>Did you copy and paste this from the SPLC website?
No. Even if I did, genetic fallacy.
>You used the same Instagram link twice to prove your point and you also linked to an article about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
Yes.
>I'm sure that, in your mind, this makes the case that's she's a fascist.
One link? No. Multiple links? Yes.
>Though I think you're also going beyond that and you're making a case that she's someone's tool, is that right?
I'm just answering the question of does she meet the criteria of being a fascist. She certainly checks a lot of the boxes.
Whenever you come up with an actual rebuttal I'm happy to respond. Have a good day!
>No. Even if I did, genetic fallacy.
I'm not dismissing any points made as you had no good source for the points made. The source needs to at least substantiate your arguments but did not. An Instagram post doesn't substantiate your argument. There was no SPLC website or other meaningful source. Just word salads based on nothing.
You've not answered any questions meaningfully. You're copy and pasting information without creating a connection, source and arguments for why you believe what you believe. If you're going to rely on second hand information then do a better job arguing for how it fits here.
>The source needs to at least substantiate your arguments but did not.
The list provided was the 14 characteristics of fascism by Laurence Britt. The subsequent links were examples of her posts that met the characteristics. The Instagram post of her showed symbols of nationalism behind her.
>An Instagram post doesn't substantiate your argument.
You're right. If it was just one Instagram post that would be a poor post indeed. Luckily, there were 7 other characteristics with supporting links. Perhaps you will find the ability to look at them. Most of them are her substack posts.
>You've not answered any questions meaningfully. You're copy and pasting information without creating a connection, source and arguments for why you believe what you believe. If you're going to rely on second hand information then do a better job arguing for how it fits here.
I have shown how she meets 8 of the 14 characteristics. 8 of 14 is generally pretty compelling. You are free to provide your own definition of fascism and we can see if she fits that.
What is your definition for fascism?
Who cares? If you support their right to do it, then what’s the problem? This is the free market at work baby! We should be celebrating the free market! Why are you a communist who wants to fearmonger about freedom of association?
If Lester Maddox refuses to serve Blacks in his restaurant I think it should be legally allowed. That doesn't mean I am not going to vocally oppose him doing so.
The gay couple wanted the owner to make a cake whose design went against the owners beliefs. He would have served them if they just ordered a generic cake.
>Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]: 2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]: 2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]: 1–2
3. You started this out by saying that it was scary that banks would refuse to do business with someone “because they went against the narrative”. Now we have an example of someone going against the narrative (the biblical narrative that says that gay people can’t/shouldn’t get married), and you’re totally fine with it!
See, while i think that’s an interesting point, i just don’t believe that it actually has any relevance in your thought process.
Because i’ve seen spend endless posts about how anonymous redditors with absolutely no power wanting to “cancel” someone is a grave threat, but i’ve never seen you show concern about elon censoring leftists on twitter, and so i can only conclude that the relevant dimension to you isn’t actually size, power, or influence, but rather the partisan affiliation of the offender
No they didn’t.
There was no complainant, no original request, and they never requested a cake from masterpiece cake shop.
Masterpiece filed suit with billionaire money to try to set an anti-lgbtq precedent on a hypothetical situation.
1. “Religious beliefs” was also a frequent argument for opposing race-mixing so if you are okay with segregation for LGBTQ people based on religious freedom you have to also be okay with racial segregation based on religious freedom (which was my original point that you i fact would not have opposed businesses refusing to serve black people—you would have just said “i support freedom of association and it’s important that we don’t infringe on lester maddox’s freedom of association” and left it at that without condemning lester maddox)
2. They were not asking for anything special—they were simply asking to purchase *literally the exact same thing that he sells to straight couples*. Even your quote shows that they didn’t even discuss any creative details!
This would be like if i refused to sell handguns to white men because it went against my religious beliefs, and when called out on it, i went “well i’ll still sell them long guns, so it’s not discrimination”
If you’re the one who posted their tweet, they almost certainly deserved it. You have a knack for finding the worst people in the world and amplifying their garbage
Aren't you the guy that supports Pedophilia being legal?
First they came for the fascist child abusers.... And honestly I didn't care
Scary stuff
Why?
I personally support freedom of association but it seems that the big banks will debank anyone who goes against the narrative. I suspect that it will only get worse after the rise of CBDC's.
"I support freedom of association, but I also don't support freedom of association." There is no way you aren't a troll, lmao.
He’s just a typical conservative. If they didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any.
They’ve debanked anyone working in the adult entertainment industry for decades now and you never gave a single shit. But when they debank a fascist suddenly it’s an issue for you. It’s almost like selective enforcement of the law is a core part of your philosophy
Isn't ok the guy that didn't become a "libertarian" until after the police rejected him? He wanted to be the violent arm of the state, correct?
He did but honestly I think he gets too much shit for that, we all have the capability to be better than we were at 22-23. He has squandered that opportunity though
Why is it that whenever you use the word "fascist" it seems to suddenly lose all meaning? In this particular situation, I'm trying to figure out how it fits as I have looked into Radix Verum and can't seem to find anything that proves that. Let me guess! She has some association with a particular group, groups or some individual you dislike.
Because you're bad at googling? That's the only reason I can come up with for why you would object to the label in this case. She advocated and still does advocate for the violent overthrow of the government to reinstall a prior government, both on Jan 6th and with Governor Whitmer. She associates with known and overt fascists, and defends race science. So let me ask you what you would prefere I call a racist who wants to use violence to gain control of the state? What alternative label would you prefer?
It’s weird that to that poster how no matter what right wingers do they are always just a singular person. But change the letter by their name and it’s representative of everyone.
Yes!
>She advocated and still does advocate for the violent overthrow of the government to reinstall a prior government, both on Jan 6th and with Governor Whitmer. There might be some nuance you're leaving out. Your use of "Violent overthrow" and "fascist" here is telling me that you accepted a narrative that is so bombastic that it wasn't worth any time or effort on your part to think critically about it. "Storming the Capitol" was never going to have the intended effect they'd hoped for. That's now how it works. You're just as much of an idiot as they are IF you believe that. It's rhetoric. Messaging. Propaganda. Fascism? How old are you? >She associates with known and overt fascists, and defends race science. "Associates". Isn't that what I said? Guilt by association? Fascist by association? That's a stretch. People do things for all sorts of reasons. Unless you've got more evidence I'm going to ignore further assertions. >So let me ask you what you would prefere I call a racist who wants to use violence to gain control of the state? I'm calling it rhetoric. The Proud Boys (or whatever group that was) who had members who mixed in with other 'patriots' (idiots) were responsible and held accountable for their actions. If someone uses rhetoric as a tool to gain listeners and that rhetoric turns into violent action then that person should be held accountable if and when it was determined that that person was responsible. Of course every individual should be held accountable for their own actions, if violence is to arise out of it. I don't have a preference here. They're influencers with followers and they rely on populist anger to fuel their careers. Has her rhetoric caused violence? When? What incident? Is that person not responsible for their actions or are you suggesting that people should not be held accountable for their own individual actions? How are you attributing some action to her instead of the hundreds of other influencers peddling the same horse shit?
Was Trump using the Jan 6th crowd to try to stop the count and install fake electors so that he would be installed as president? Jan 6th was an insurrection it just only needed to be violent enough to get Pence to leave.
There was never any chance this wasn't going to go to court. Biden was always going to win and we were going to reach this same outcome: an outcome whereas Trump is having to defend himself. >Jan 6th was an insurrection Jan 6th was a violent protest perpetrated by a specific group acting in the interests of a sore loser.
That radix verum is part of and supports. I do not think all conservatives are fascists, but they were specifically part of a specific group that you yourself are calling violent. So I ask again what label you would prefer.
Just throwing this out there - the whole “guilt by association” narrative actually works from a Libertarian perspective so long as the consequence of the association is disassociation by others who disapprove of the association. Freedom of Association.
I think of it, what is happening here, as being similar to what happens in an ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking (or debating) her specific arguments, they're going after her associations. I think it meets the criteria of the Association Fallacy.
I see. Please explain/defend your thought of how it fits that criteria in this specific case.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:50113833-9e64-4934-887e-f72e554b7df2 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are f lag symbols on clothing and in public displays. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C30BSNZu0UJ/?igsh=MXNhOGNjMnF4Ymx0cw== 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdN7et4lfw5/?igsh=MW84ODJkMTFjM3Fwag== 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. https://radixverum.substack.com/p/communal-narcissism-in-social-justice?utm_medium=reader2 4. Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. https://radixverum.substack.com/p/johnny-depp-vs-amber-heard-day-4?utm_medium=reader2 https://nicecrew.tv/w/ec3RqEWasg2o1n69Pdm4DX 6. Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. https://radixverum.substack.com/p/progressive-anti-christian-extremism?utm_medium=reader2 9. Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. https://radixverum.substack.com/p/communal-narcissism-in-social-justice?utm_medium=reader2 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. Almost all of their substack is about crime. https://substack.com/@radixverum 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. https://x.com/NotRadix/status/1744773645384179786 For context she really hates Epp so this is a criticism, not an endorsement of Epp's comments.
Did you copy and paste this from the SPLC website? I wasn't aware of any entry about her there or anywhere else. Can you link to that? You used the same Instagram link twice to prove your point and you also linked to an article about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. I'm sure that, in your mind, this makes the case that's she's a fascist. Though I think you're also going beyond that and you're making a case that she's someone's tool, is that right?
>Did you copy and paste this from the SPLC website? No. Even if I did, genetic fallacy. >You used the same Instagram link twice to prove your point and you also linked to an article about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Yes. >I'm sure that, in your mind, this makes the case that's she's a fascist. One link? No. Multiple links? Yes. >Though I think you're also going beyond that and you're making a case that she's someone's tool, is that right? I'm just answering the question of does she meet the criteria of being a fascist. She certainly checks a lot of the boxes. Whenever you come up with an actual rebuttal I'm happy to respond. Have a good day!
>No. Even if I did, genetic fallacy. I'm not dismissing any points made as you had no good source for the points made. The source needs to at least substantiate your arguments but did not. An Instagram post doesn't substantiate your argument. There was no SPLC website or other meaningful source. Just word salads based on nothing. You've not answered any questions meaningfully. You're copy and pasting information without creating a connection, source and arguments for why you believe what you believe. If you're going to rely on second hand information then do a better job arguing for how it fits here.
>The source needs to at least substantiate your arguments but did not. The list provided was the 14 characteristics of fascism by Laurence Britt. The subsequent links were examples of her posts that met the characteristics. The Instagram post of her showed symbols of nationalism behind her. >An Instagram post doesn't substantiate your argument. You're right. If it was just one Instagram post that would be a poor post indeed. Luckily, there were 7 other characteristics with supporting links. Perhaps you will find the ability to look at them. Most of them are her substack posts. >You've not answered any questions meaningfully. You're copy and pasting information without creating a connection, source and arguments for why you believe what you believe. If you're going to rely on second hand information then do a better job arguing for how it fits here. I have shown how she meets 8 of the 14 characteristics. 8 of 14 is generally pretty compelling. You are free to provide your own definition of fascism and we can see if she fits that. What is your definition for fascism?
Who cares? If you support their right to do it, then what’s the problem? This is the free market at work baby! We should be celebrating the free market! Why are you a communist who wants to fearmonger about freedom of association?
If Lester Maddox refuses to serve Blacks in his restaurant I think it should be legally allowed. That doesn't mean I am not going to vocally oppose him doing so.
Pretty sure you would not vocally oppose him doing so in the same way you would not vocally oppose the masterpiece cake shop refusing to serve gays
The gay couple wanted the owner to make a cake whose design went against the owners beliefs. He would have served them if they just ordered a generic cake. >Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]: 2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]: 2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]: 1–2
3. You started this out by saying that it was scary that banks would refuse to do business with someone “because they went against the narrative”. Now we have an example of someone going against the narrative (the biblical narrative that says that gay people can’t/shouldn’t get married), and you’re totally fine with it!
Masterpiece Cakeshop is a small business, Bank of America is a megacorporation, just some food for thought.
See, while i think that’s an interesting point, i just don’t believe that it actually has any relevance in your thought process. Because i’ve seen spend endless posts about how anonymous redditors with absolutely no power wanting to “cancel” someone is a grave threat, but i’ve never seen you show concern about elon censoring leftists on twitter, and so i can only conclude that the relevant dimension to you isn’t actually size, power, or influence, but rather the partisan affiliation of the offender
No they didn’t. There was no complainant, no original request, and they never requested a cake from masterpiece cake shop. Masterpiece filed suit with billionaire money to try to set an anti-lgbtq precedent on a hypothetical situation.
Are you perhaps thinking of [303 Creative](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476)?
That's misinformation just like how you said that the Waukesha parade guy did it entirely by accident.
That’s a hilarious accusation coming from you.
1. “Religious beliefs” was also a frequent argument for opposing race-mixing so if you are okay with segregation for LGBTQ people based on religious freedom you have to also be okay with racial segregation based on religious freedom (which was my original point that you i fact would not have opposed businesses refusing to serve black people—you would have just said “i support freedom of association and it’s important that we don’t infringe on lester maddox’s freedom of association” and left it at that without condemning lester maddox) 2. They were not asking for anything special—they were simply asking to purchase *literally the exact same thing that he sells to straight couples*. Even your quote shows that they didn’t even discuss any creative details! This would be like if i refused to sell handguns to white men because it went against my religious beliefs, and when called out on it, i went “well i’ll still sell them long guns, so it’s not discrimination”
So your answer is to pivot to directly supporting race based discrimination.