# Discrimination is a fundamental human right.



## dblack

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


----------



## Mr. H.

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad. 

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent. 

But that just ain't how this country rolls. 

Not since 2008.


----------



## dblack

Mr. H. said:


> The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
> 
> The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
> 
> But that just ain't how this country rolls.
> 
> Not since 2008.



Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

Discussion's of public accommodation laws center on two basic areas: discussion of how the laws work and what the laws should be.  Two different things.

But with that said, I agree with Goldwater, and while I can understand why they were created I think in the long term it was a mistake.  Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed to respect the rights of individual business owners of association and property.

On the other hand, there is the States power to regulate commerce.  Yes remember there are PA laws that are enacted by the State legislatures.

The two extremes, overly broad PA laws on one side which encompass all private business and on the other no protections for consumers in the realm of business accessibility are oft an individuals position.

Over the years though I've seen two compromise proposals:

1.  One is to limit PA laws and to narrowly tailor their application to only those businesses involved in "vital" commerce.  Raw food sales on site, on-site foods sales, gas, transportation, housing, medical care, etc.  Non-vital and personal service businesses would not be subject to such restrictions.

2.  The second option is a public notice option whereby businesses are required to make information available to the public in advance of their business practices.  A statement of public access would be maintained on file with the businesses license and would be open to public review.  In addition the business would be required to include in advertising a statement of access and have it prominently posted where the customer could see it (entrances, cash resister, etc.).  If the business didn't want to service a certain sector of the public, they must provide notice to the public - in advance.  A business would be held accountable under PA laws for the policies they say they will follow.  A business could change their policy but must do so in writing, filing a new statement of access with their license, and would take effect 30-days after such filing is recorded.  The business gets to set their own policies and the public can then make their purchase decisions in an informed manner.​


With that said PA laws should always apply to government entities as to how they conduct business and should include restrictions on government entities ability to contract with private entities.  If a business wants to operate under a discriminatory business model, not a problem go for it.  However they would be ineligible for (a) government contracts and (b) the sales of goods and services to government entities.


>>>>


----------



## Mr. H.

dblack said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
> 
> The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
> 
> But that just ain't how this country rolls.
> 
> Not since 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.
Click to expand...

Please expound.


----------



## BlackFlag

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


 Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then.  Like Iran or Sudan.


----------



## dblack

BlackFlag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then.  Like Iran or Sudan.
Click to expand...


I haven't quite given up on this one yet.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.



That's what a bigot would say.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then.  Like Iran or Sudan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't quite given up on this one yet.
Click to expand...


Don't let the door hit you . . . .


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then.  Like Iran or Sudan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't quite given up on this one yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you . . . .
Click to expand...


I'm taking off the hinges. Shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


 
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
Click to expand...


You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

 
My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.

So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?

And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
Click to expand...

A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
Click to expand...


That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Click to expand...

 
Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you didn't think that applied across the board.  Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed.  Did I misunderstand you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
Click to expand...

 
Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned. 

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I get people mixed up sometimes.
> 
> So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
> 
> And it is not incompatible with equal protection.  That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group.  Even that is not an absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
Click to expand...



It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
Click to expand...

 
No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
Click to expand...


If there's no such thing, the question is moot.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
Click to expand...


Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association;
> Freedom of Religion;
> Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
> Right to pursue happiness;
> 
> 
> In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
Click to expand...


If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
> 
> Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
Click to expand...


I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
Click to expand...


My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing.  This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.
> 
> Now, to the question.  Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
Click to expand...


I reject obvious myths, yes.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no such thing, the question is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
Click to expand...


Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
Click to expand...

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
Click to expand...


I agree it makes no sense, but not because I fail to understand.  I think it is you who fail to understand what a "right" is.  A "right" has no meaning except in a society.  Rights do not exist because they are inherent, any examination of history makes that abundantly clear.  They exist because the society says they exist, and they exist in the context of law.  To claim rights exist outside of that context may make one feel good, but it is irrelevant.  You either have a legal right or you have no right at all.  Anything else is, as you say, "made up".


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
Click to expand...


"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject pointless adjectives.  I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank.  If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent.  So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.
> 
> Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
Click to expand...

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
Click to expand...


I believe I have already said there is no such thing.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
Click to expand...


And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost,_ inalienable rights. _If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
Click to expand...


You seem to share PratchettFan's conception of term, which I consider a mis-conception. I think you're missing the point. But it's a subtle argument, and probably not something we can clear up here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Discrimination is a fundamental human right."

That depends on what is meant by 'discrimination.'

Preferring Coke rather than Pepsi is perfectly appropriate; government seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law based solely on who they are is not.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
Click to expand...


The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Discrimination is a fundamental human right."
> 
> That depends on what is meant by 'discrimination.'
> 
> Preferring Coke rather than Pepsi is perfectly appropriate; government seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law based solely on who they are is not.



Governments don't have rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


No one ever said one does.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government – including government regulation of private business.

And when government seeks to regulate business it must do so in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court.

With regard to public accommodations laws, such regulatory measures are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – they in no way 'violate' the rights of business owners, who are subject to all manner of regulatory measures that are likewise Constitutional.

When one engages on commerce he is subject to the regulatory measures of his jurisdiction, where following those measures is not to 'give up' one's rights.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said one does.
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government ...
Click to expand...


Our rights are subject to restriction when they violate the rights of others, not when they conflict with the interest of powerful lobbyists.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject obvious myths, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
Click to expand...

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.
Click to expand...


And it continues to be unanswered.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
Click to expand...


No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
Click to expand...

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it continues to be unanswered.
Click to expand...


It continues to make no sense.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away.  If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
Click to expand...


Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
Click to expand...

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?


----------



## dblack

I'm not interested in tedious debates about definitions or "constitutional jurisprudence". I'm merely claiming that stripping people of the right to say no thanks to an offer they aren't comfortable with - for any reason - is fucked up, and smells to high heaven of fascism.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

However it is all right to ban drag queens....

Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people - Home News - UK - The Independent

...from participating in a Free Pride rally because it might offend the trans genders without it being considered discrimination.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Bfgrn

WorldWatcher said:


> Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed to respect the rights of individual business owners of association and property.



Our founding fathers vehemently disagree...


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered.  Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself?  Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
Click to expand...

 
I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual. 

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in tedious debates about definitions or "constitutional jurisprudence". I'm merely claiming that stripping people of the right to say no thanks to an offer they aren't comfortable with - for any reason - is fucked up, and smells to high heaven of fascism.


 
Ok.  You are utterly wrong, but you have the right to be utterly wrong.  I consider it fucked up to take advantage of all the benefits a society provides and yet consider yourself put upon because you have to accept some responsibility for the welfare of that society.  Freedom is not an entitlement - it is a responsibility.


----------



## Slyhunter

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.
> 
> No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.
> 
> You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
Click to expand...

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.


----------



## PratchettFan

Slyhunter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not depend.  Either it is absolute or it is not.  I am asking you which it is.
> 
> 
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
Click to expand...


You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity.  That falls under the free exercise of religion.  Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus?  Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
Click to expand...

 
I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.


----------



## Roadrunner

Mr. H. said:


> The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
> 
> The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
> 
> But that just ain't how this country rolls.
> 
> Not since 2008.


I can't deprive you of your human rights, but, I don't have to like you.

That is how I roll.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
Click to expand...


I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated it was a public street.  In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing.  But out come the provisos.  Violates other people's rights.  Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.
> 
> So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public.  That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it.  Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
Click to expand...

 
I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
> When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Absolutely inalienable.  It trumps everything.  And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use....  because I say so.  I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law.  All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true.  It's amazingly convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
Click to expand...

 
If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.

Philosophically, communism works perfectly.  Capitalism, fascism, theocracy and anarchism all work perfectly.  This is because the one thing philosophers never have to take into account is that a society is made up of human beings who are going to act like human beings no matter what philosophy is used.  A position based upon a philosophical view may be attractive but it has about as much practical application as assuming chocolate unicorns will dance about handing out free toys.  So I will of course be pragmatic, because I fully understand that philosophical liberties are a fairy tale.

I am thinking rights are explicit government guarantees because that is what they are.  To deny that is to deny reality.  And you are wrong about the founders. They were pragmatists to the core.  They could not afford to be otherwise.  So when they wrote the Constitution they included written rights in it, making them guaranteed by the government, because they understood that philosophical rights are useless for anything beyond a bullshit session over the port.  What they did not include were phrases such as "inalienable rights" because they understood the phrase is a classic oxymoron.  It is a pretty phrase, but it was and continues to be nothing more than propaganda. 

If you live by yourself with no social contact, then you are certainly free - but you have no rights.  Rights only have meaning in the context of a society.  And they exist only to the extent the society allows them to exist.  You have no inherent rights and you certainly have no inalienable rights.  The moment society decides you don't have a right, that right disappears.  You can call that right inalienable or fundamental if you please, but it does not change the reality.  You are not, therefore, entitled to those rights but have a responsibility to ensure the society continues to recognize them.

Let me say that expressing yourself here is part of that responsibility.  The free discourse of ideas, especially opposing ideas, is crucial to the maintenance of liberty.  OTOH, so is the economic and social stability of the society.  Placing individual rights over that stability is a pretty quick way to lose individual rights.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't _want_ to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
Click to expand...


I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it.  As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.
Click to expand...


Did you actually read that post?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what _I_ mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what _I _mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read that post?
Click to expand...


I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.

Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean.  You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across.  I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient.  And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is.  So yes, we will keep going around in circles.  From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry.  So agreement is not going to happen.  Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.
Click to expand...

 
Ok.  I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government.  Hence the laws.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.
> 
> The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.
> 
> You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things _were_ philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.
> 
> I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government.  Hence the laws.
Click to expand...


Oh, I know you do. I actually meant to type most judges would agree, but it doesn't really matter. You won't get the point anyway.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall.  Because you are wrong on just about every level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government.  Hence the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know you do. I actually meant to type most judges would agree, but it doesn't really matter. You won't get the point anyway.
Click to expand...

 
I get the point.  You are just wrong.  Most judges would not agree.  The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law.  The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.  But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality.  Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> I get the point.  You are just wrong.  Most judges would not agree.  The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law.  The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.  But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality.  Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.



I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.

Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the point.  You are just wrong.  Most judges would not agree.  The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law.  The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.  But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality.  Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.
> 
> Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.
Click to expand...


You are wrong, and you just stated why you are wrong.  That seems to be the point you don't get.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the point.  You are just wrong.  Most judges would not agree.  The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law.  The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.  But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality.  Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.
> 
> Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong, and you just stated why you are wrong.  That seems to be the point you don't get.
Click to expand...

Wow.


----------



## dblack

You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.


----------



## dblack

You seem to be firmly stuck on the idea that inalienable rights can't be infringed.


----------



## ChrisL

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!



Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?


----------



## Slyhunter

ChrisL said:


> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!


Freedom of association.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Slyhunter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.


----------



## Ravi

Roadrunner said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
> 
> The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
> 
> But that just ain't how this country rolls.
> 
> Not since 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't deprive you of your human rights, but, I don't have to like you.
> 
> That is how I roll.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the bakers don't like gay people they are free to say so and be as offensive about it as they wish while ringing up the sale.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
Click to expand...

She didn't want to publicly accommodate you, and since she wasn't in business to do so was well within her rights.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Damaged Eagle said:


> However it is all right to ban drag queens....
> 
> Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people - Home News - UK - The Independent
> 
> ...from participating in a Free Pride rally because it might offend the trans genders without it being considered discrimination.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****





What does something happening in *Glasgow* have to do with this conversation?


----------



## Carla_Danger

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
Click to expand...




Were you hiring a hooker?


----------



## Slyhunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association has everything to do with choosing who you will or will not associate or do business with.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association has everything to do with choosing who you will or will not associate or do business with.
Click to expand...


Takes some powerful blinders to walk around that one.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
Click to expand...


The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.


----------



## ChrisL

Slyhunter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
Click to expand...


Hopefully this is just a joke.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.



Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?


----------



## Ravi

Slyhunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association has everything to do with choosing who you will or will not associate or do business with.
Click to expand...

Right and you are welcome to choose not to run a public accommodation business.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
Click to expand...

Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
Click to expand...




ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
Click to expand...


It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?


----------



## dblack

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
Click to expand...


No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?
Click to expand...

Who is most of us, you and your mouse?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?
Click to expand...


As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life.  If you open a business, the rules are different.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
Click to expand...


Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
Click to expand...


The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
Click to expand...


For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.


----------



## Ravi

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
Click to expand...

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life.  If you open a business, the rules are different.
Click to expand...


Only a little. You can still discriminate against most people. As long as you steer clear of the protected classes.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
Click to expand...


I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
Click to expand...


I don't know what you are talking about.  I am telling you that if you open a business and openly discriminate against certain groups of American citizens, then you will be answering for it.  It's ignorant.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
Click to expand...


So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
Click to expand...


Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life.  If you open a business, the rules are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a little. You can still discriminate against most people. As long as you steer clear of the protected classes.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can discriminate against a person for personal reasons I believe.  Like, this guy robbed my store before or was caught stealing.  Things like that, yes.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The expansive interpretation of the commerce clause gives the modern statist an excuse in nearly any circumstance, and needs to squarely overruled.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you even licensed your business and if so is it considered a public accommodation business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a joke at all. How far should the government go to ensure we treat each other equally? It think most of us recognize that the public accommodations things is little more than a convenient excuse to suppress bigotry. What if government decides to suppress something you feel strongly about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you've been told, you are free to be an ass and discriminate against whomever you wish in your private life.  If you open a business, the rules are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a little. You can still discriminate against most people. As long as you steer clear of the protected classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can discriminate against a person for personal reasons I believe.  Like, this guy robbed my store before or was caught stealing.  Things like that, yes.
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to personal. You can discriminate based on anything you like as long as it's not covered by the protected classes.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class.  Lol.
Click to expand...


And would you still support the law if it is added?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unless "assholes" are added as a protected class.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And would you still support the law if it is added?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I'm not going to humor you.  That is just silly.  Keep it real, K?


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again,  and think about it before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
Click to expand...


No, when you violate another person's civil rights, by discriminating against them, that is where your "freedom" to do what you want ends, and this is how it is applied to business associations because it is in NOBODY's best interest, and especially not the state's best interest or the people's best interest.  The idea behind the law is that everyone has access and no one can discriminate.


----------



## Carla_Danger

dblack said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
Click to expand...



As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada.  My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.

From Wikipedia

Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.

All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.


----------



## ChrisL

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada.  My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.
> 
> All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.
Click to expand...


I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice.  Eww.


----------



## Carla_Danger

ChrisL said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada.  My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.
> 
> All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice.  Eww.
Click to expand...



I know, right?  

Can you imagine if this man walked in?  LOL!  Would you like your back hair combed or braided?  Yikes!


----------



## Carla_Danger

I don't wanna think about that anymore.


----------



## ChrisL

Carla_Danger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada.  My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off.
> 
> All but the smallest brothels operate as follows: as the customer is buzzed in and sits down in the parlor, the available women appear in a line-up and introduce themselves. If the customer chooses a woman, the price negotiations take place in the woman's room, which are often overheard by management. The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings. Typical prices start at US$200 for 15 minutes. Some may charge up to $10,000 an hour for "parties" with well-known or novelty women, or more for parties with multiple women. The prostitutes almost never kiss on the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would imagine that you are probably right in that they don't get much choice.  Eww.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?
> 
> Can you imagine if this man walked in?  LOL!  Would you like your back hair combed or braided?  Yikes!
Click to expand...


All kinds of sweaty, gross, smelly dudes.  Man, a person must be really desperate to do that for a living.


----------



## dblack

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to discriminate fools!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there's only one state where prostitution is legal, and that's Nevada.  My suggestion to any business owner is to get familiar with your state laws, and act accordingly or risk losing your business. According to wiki, most of the women who work in legal brothels, don't have much of a choice on who they have sex with.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? I suppose you're missing the point on purpose, rather than addressing it. Can you just answer the question? Should such women be _legally_ prevented from turning people down for the "wrong" reasons? Or should that remain a personal choice, even though money might change hands, even though they might work in a 'public accommodation'?


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, when you violate another person's civil rights, by discriminating against them, that is where your "freedom" to do what you want ends, and this is how it is applied to business associations because it is in NOBODY's best interest, and especially not the state's best interest or the people's best interest.  The idea behind the law is that everyone has access and no one can discriminate.
Click to expand...


That's indeed how it's supposed to work. The only justification for limiting our rights is the protection of the rights of others. But that's not what's happening here. There is no individual right to not be discriminated against


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
Click to expand...

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you are just wrong.    What else can one say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
Click to expand...

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's a debate forum. If you want to be taken seriously you usually need to say _why_ you think someone is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
Click to expand...


How does not?


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you hiring a hooker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.
Click to expand...


You think the majority will aways be on your side?


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the reasons you've already been told numerous times.  Don't play dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
Click to expand...

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's actually an excellent example. In states where prostitution is legal, should hookers have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Or should the only have to right to say "no" if the government approves of their reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the majority will aways be on your side?
Click to expand...

The majority is rarely on my side.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan  claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
Click to expand...


Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the majority will aways be on your side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The majority is rarely on my side.
Click to expand...


Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...

Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the majority will aways be on your side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The majority is rarely on my side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't going to happen.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? *The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society.* Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...


Wow...


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.
Click to expand...


It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? *The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society.* Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...
Click to expand...

You bolded the wrong sentence. I was answering number 3.


----------



## Ravi

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?
Click to expand...

I can't answer for others.


----------



## kaz

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what a bigot would say.
Click to expand...


A bigot or a true liberal.  There is nothing liberal about running to government to force others to do things for you, that is authoritarian leftism


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? *The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society.* Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bolded the wrong sentence. I was answering number 3.
Click to expand...


That was deliberate. I was hoping it would encourage you to try a little harder.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> 
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't answer for others.
Click to expand...


What are you even talking about?? It is claimed that bakers who refuse to make cakes for gay weddings are inflicting harm, that's the reason why the Courts allow a law that overrides their freedom of association. But I'm asking, how is that harm? How did we get in this weird place where not doing something for someone is considered harm, and forcing someone to do something against their will is an appropriate remedy?


----------



## I amso IR

dblack said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
> 
> The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
> 
> But that just ain't how this country rolls.
> 
> Not since 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.
Click to expand...


I amso IR responds;

Goldwater did not discriminate. He said he would nuke anyone who threatened the USA! I believe he used the term, rotate the nukes in storage, with an older shelf life, or words to that effect.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...


Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.  End of story.  You can stop whining at any time.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.
> 
> The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.
> 
> In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
Click to expand...


That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
Click to expand...


You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
Click to expand...


If you can't run a business without discriminating against groups of taxpaying American citizens who contribute to OUR economy, then most of us probably don't really want you to run a business anyway.  Bigot.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> 
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
Click to expand...

That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does not?
> 
> 
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't run a business without discriminating against groups of taxpaying American citizens who contribute to OUR economy, then most of us probably don't really want you to run a business anyway.
Click to expand...

That's true. 


> Bigot.


That's not.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
Click to expand...


Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
Click to expand...


All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
Click to expand...


Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
Click to expand...


Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any right to discriminate against people.  It hurts business, which harms the state's income.  The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business.  That is all there is too it.  All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
Click to expand...


I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Why do you say that?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you do.  Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine.  Nobody cares.  These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways.  I know I wouldn't.  When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right."  Read the laws.  They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time.  Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight.  NONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
Click to expand...


Read your whiny thread.  That should answer your question.  Not to mention, your whole thread is based upon a lie. You do not have any right to discriminate against your fellow Americans.  It's a pretty crappy thing, and you should feel ashamed of yourself, but you don't and that tells us a lot about you.


----------



## ChrisL

Seriously, I would feel embarrassed if I were you.  You seem quite ignorant.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Seriously, I would feel embarrassed if I were you.  You seem quite ignorant.



Listen, I can appreciate that you might be taking this personally, but I'm not. You really, really, don't know me at all. Let's just keep it about the ideas, ok?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I would feel embarrassed if I were you.  You seem quite ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, I can appreciate that you might be taking this personally, but I'm not. You really, really, don't know me at all. Let's just keep it about the ideas, ok?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, anyone who thinks it is their right to discriminate against other people in this country and in this age is ignorant, IMO.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I would feel embarrassed if I were you.  You seem quite ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, I can appreciate that you might be taking this personally, but I'm not. You really, really, don't know me at all. Let's just keep it about the ideas, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, anyone who thinks it is their right to discriminate against other people in this country and in this age is ignorant, IMO.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Likewise, IMO anyone who thinks we should try to regulate discrimination with laws isn't really thinking in through.

I don't like to indulge bigots. Most importantly, I don't think bigots should be able to impose their views on others through force, or via government. Equal rights under the law is an absolute imperative. Everyone should be treated equally by government. But to extend that idea by asking government to ensure _we all treat each other equally,_ even if it's just in matters of commerce, even if it's just in businesses classified as "public accommodations", is asking government to take on a role that requires it to read our minds. It's asking government to peer into our thoughts and second-guess our most deeply held personal convictions - ultimately telling us which can be used to guide our actions and which can't.

The worst irony of this approach to civil rights is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. Because we can't, in any practical way, ensure that everyone is protected from discrimination, we've taken to targeting specific kinds of discrimination, with select minorities (those with enough public support to sway the legislature) receiving special protection. Worse still, this kind of special protection will only ever be offered to minorities who have already "won" the war for equal rights, who have already achieved critical mass in swaying public opinion. Minorities who can't win majority support for their cause will still continue to suffer.

As long as these kinds of laws are on the books, I can't think of one good reason sexual preference shouldn't be added to the protected classes list to extend protection from discrimination to gays. But the thing is, if we're going to preserve any semblance of equal rights, everyone should be covered. And to do that would require a government monitoring and second-guessing our every decision. Even if we could find some way to navigate such as logistical nightmare, the resulting society would be totalitarian in the extreme and, I hope, nothing you would want to see.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Carla_Danger said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However it is all right to ban drag queens....
> 
> Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people - Home News - UK - The Independent
> 
> ...from participating in a Free Pride rally because it might offend the trans genders without it being considered discrimination.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does something happening in *Glasgow* have to do with this conversation?
Click to expand...







Perhaps I find it humorous that a Pride rally would discriminate against another group that wants to celebrate their differences.

Is this same selective outrage being practices at Pride rallies in the United States?

I'm bettin' it will be.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your whiny thread.  That should answer your question.  Not to mention, your whole thread is based upon a lie. You do not have any right to discriminate against your fellow Americans.  It's a pretty crappy thing, and you should feel ashamed of yourself, but you don't and that tells us a lot about you.
Click to expand...


Everyone discriminates.  It just depends on what level the discrimination occurs.  Some might call it freedom of association, but everyone discriminates.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong.  Read the law.  Yes, the states have every right to make rules and regulations regarding business.  If you can't handle it, don't open a business.  Simple as that.  Your incessant and annoying whining isn't going to change jack shit because, thankfully, the people who are in charge are much more intelligent than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your whiny thread.  That should answer your question.  Not to mention, your whole thread is based upon a lie. You do not have any right to discriminate against your fellow Americans.  It's a pretty crappy thing, and you should feel ashamed of yourself, but you don't and that tells us a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone discriminates.  It just depends on what level the discrimination occurs.  Some might call it freedom of association, but everyone discriminates.
Click to expand...


Do you know what discrimination means?  It doesn't mean choosing your friends.  This is the definition of discrimination that we are using in this thread. So, you normally discriminate against people in your day to day life and/or business dealings?  Do you refuse to do business with a certain "group" of people without even knowing what kind of people they might be? 

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
_noun_

*1*.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****



No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
Click to expand...







You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. I suspect my "whining" will flare up every time a new "protected class" is added to the list. And each time, more and more people will question the underlying ideas involved. I suspect that even most people who support these laws recognize it's not a good general policy. They just just think it's worth it in name of ridding society of racism and bigotry. But to extend the concept further, putting government in charge of ensuring that we all treat each other equally, throws equal protection under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your whiny thread.  That should answer your question.  Not to mention, your whole thread is based upon a lie. You do not have any right to discriminate against your fellow Americans.  It's a pretty crappy thing, and you should feel ashamed of yourself, but you don't and that tells us a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone discriminates.  It just depends on what level the discrimination occurs.  Some might call it freedom of association, but everyone discriminates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what discrimination means?  It doesn't mean choosing your friends.  This is the definition of discrimination that we are using in this thread. So, you normally discriminate against people in your day to day life and/or business dealings?  Do you refuse to do business with a certain "group" of people without even knowing what kind of people they might be?
> 
> dis·crim·i·na·tion
> dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Click to expand...


Of course!  I discriminate all the time.  I am a "discriminating" person.  That has always been a good thing.  You don't cozy up to everything that walks through your social or business doors.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.


----------



## ChrisL

You could be selling toothbrushes, but if you tell gay people that you won't sell toothbrushes to them, then you are going to face some consequences.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  Life must suck for you.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your whiny thread.  That should answer your question.  Not to mention, your whole thread is based upon a lie. You do not have any right to discriminate against your fellow Americans.  It's a pretty crappy thing, and you should feel ashamed of yourself, but you don't and that tells us a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone discriminates.  It just depends on what level the discrimination occurs.  Some might call it freedom of association, but everyone discriminates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what discrimination means?  It doesn't mean choosing your friends.  This is the definition of discrimination that we are using in this thread. So, you normally discriminate against people in your day to day life and/or business dealings?  Do you refuse to do business with a certain "group" of people without even knowing what kind of people they might be?
> 
> dis·crim·i·na·tion
> dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course!  I discriminate all the time.  I am a "discriminating" person.  That has always been a good thing.  You don't cozy up to everything that walks through your social or business doors.
Click to expand...


What you don't seem to realize is that this is YOUR problem.  You try to make it into other people's problems, but your hatred is your own fault.

If your hatred prevents you from working with the PUBLIC (which is what a public accommodation business does), then don't go into business because if you discriminate against groups of people based on age, sex, sexual orientation, race, you will be breaking the law in your respective state.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
Click to expand...







So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.

Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."

*****SMILE*****


----------



## WorldWatcher

Damaged Eagle said:


> So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.
> 
> Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."
> 
> *****SMILE*****








Here is a cake from the website of one of the bakers having issues with public accommodation laws (Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado).

Many wedding cakes these days don't have figurines anymore.


>>>>


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they don't carry the figurines and what-not for that type of cake they don't have to make it.
> 
> Therefore all a bakery has to do is say... "I'm sorry we don't carry they items to produce a cake of that sort."
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


They would at least be able to fight a discrimination charge rather than blatantly breaking the law.    Also, you could at least play a GOOD song and a different song rather than the same song which really isn't that great of a song, IMO.


----------



## ChrisL

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?








I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.

Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.
> 
> Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


That's not the same thing, obviously.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

I also don't give to charities. I prefer to help people who need the help directly.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've turned away business because the customer not only wants a discount but a lifetime guarantee or they don't ever want to pay for me to look at something.
> 
> Sorry I don't work for free - TANSTAAFL!
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not the same thing, obviously.
Click to expand...







It's usually the ones that can afford it that think they deserve some special consideration.

They don't like it when a person says they won't do somethin' for them out of the kindness of their heart.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?



It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us should be able to advocate for social change by the work we choose to do, and the way we spend our money.

This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue is by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
Click to expand...


Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
Click to expand...


We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.
Click to expand...


Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  That violates their civil rights.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  *That violates their civil rights.*
Click to expand...


I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  *That violates their civil rights.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.
Click to expand...


Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us advocate for social change by the way choose to work and spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue are by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  *That violates their civil rights.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
Click to expand...


I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, these are the same arguments put forth by people to fight against civil rights for black people.  It failed then and it fails now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. I think it's a sound argument. I think it was then, and I think it still is. We indulged the legal remedy of protected classes legislation in reaction to the lingering social corrosion created by slavery. That's understandable. Racism was a serious problem and it was tearing our society apart. But with some distance we can see that the emergency measures used to resolve the problem aren't sustainable, and aren't good legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  *That violates their civil rights.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
Click to expand...


Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  It's because you don't like gay people.  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.


----------



## orogenicman

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.



I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.



If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.


----------



## dblack

orogenicman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.
Click to expand...


Do you think you have a right to choose who your friends are?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.  This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals.  Why can't people just be honest?  Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky.    They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them.  *That violates their civil rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
Click to expand...


Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think you have a right to choose who your friends are?
Click to expand...


That is not the same thing.  When you run a business, you have to follow the rules.  You are not special.  You are the same as everyone else in the eyes of the law, even (gasp) the gays!!


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
Click to expand...


It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
Click to expand...


Well your posts say otherwise.  Everyone is actually protected under these laws, men, women, etc.  So . . . what is your objection?  You are still free to discriminate against people in your personal life, but not when you are doing business.  And no, you are not forced to do anything since you don't have to open up a public accommodation business.  When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you would be wrong.  Read the law.  If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business.  If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit.  End of story.  These laws are not going to be overturned.  Don't be silly.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case.
Click to expand...


Well, you brought it up.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you brought it up.
Click to expand...


No, you did, by claiming that I don't like gay people.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.
> 
> And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
Click to expand...


They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise. 



> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.



Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did, by claiming that I don't like gay people.
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't!    Why else would you be okay with people (jerks) discriminating against them?


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hello?  Everything is included.  Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah.  So there.  No one can discriminate against anyone else.    Where's the problem?  I'll tell you.  *It's because you don't like gay people.*  That's all it really is.  I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner.  Sorry, I just don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.
Click to expand...


All anyone has to do is read your posts.  Your position is pretty clear.    Who do you think you're fooling?  Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.   

It is not wrong.  The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice.  If you don't like it, oh well.  I don't feel sorry for you one bit.  Not one little bit.  Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All anyone has to do is read your posts.  Your position is pretty clear.    Who do you think you're fooling?  Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.



> It is not wrong.  The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice.  If you don't like it, oh well.  I don't feel sorry for you one bit.  Not one little bit.  Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.



I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  What's that?  Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay.    Or maybe you have a close gay family member.  I've heard pretty much all of them by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All anyone has to do is read your posts.  Your position is pretty clear.    Who do you think you're fooling?  Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not wrong.  The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice.  If you don't like it, oh well.  I don't feel sorry for you one bit.  Not one little bit.  Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.
Click to expand...


I think that you are wrong.  Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works.  There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All anyone has to do is read your posts.  Your position is pretty clear.    Who do you think you're fooling?  Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not wrong.  The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice.  If you don't like it, oh well.  I don't feel sorry for you one bit.  Not one little bit.  Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you are wrong.  Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works.  There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.
Click to expand...


My point isn't that they don't work (for the most part, they have), and my opposition to them isn't based on the fact that people still resist. If a law is just, that shouldn't matter. My point is that the principle behind these laws undermines freedom and, ironically, equal protection. Despite your claim to the contrary, these laws don't protect everyone from bigotry and discrimination. They call out a few kinds of discrimination, those that are currently unpopular with voters, for suppression. We're adding more kinds of discrimination to the list, and that only seems "fair", but it exposes the problems inherent in giving government this kind of power. The more we expand it, the more it will expose the basic injustice of setting government up to override our personal decisions - even if it's for a "good" cause.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
Click to expand...







BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with.    What kind of person is that anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us should be able to advocate for social change by the work we choose to do, and the way we spend our money.
> 
> This is the way we _should_ be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.
> 
> In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue is by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.
> 
> I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.
> 
> Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.
Click to expand...







If this was truly about equal rights the judges and politicians that support it would support marriage rights for all mature willing companions.

Which means they would support marriage arrangements of all sorts that were formed by all mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied.  It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying.  *sigh*  I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  *Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.*
Click to expand...


The familiar refrain...


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well your posts say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All anyone has to do is read your posts.  Your position is pretty clear.    Who do you think you're fooling?  Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not wrong.  The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice.  If you don't like it, oh well.  I don't feel sorry for you one bit.  Not one little bit.  Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you are wrong.  Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works.  There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point isn't that they don't work (for the most part, they have), and my opposition to them isn't based on the fact that people still resist. If a law is just, that shouldn't matter. My point is that the principle behind these laws undermines freedom and, ironically, equal protection. Despite your claim to the contrary, these laws don't protect everyone from bigotry and discrimination. They call out a few kinds of discrimination, those that are currently unpopular with voters, for suppression. We're adding more kinds of discrimination to the list, and that only seems "fair", but it exposes the problems inherent in giving government this kind of power. The more we expand it, the more it will expose the basic injustice of setting government up to override our personal decisions - even if it's for a "good" cause.
Click to expand...


I think it is the rare person who behaves in this horrid way nowadays anyways.  Well, regardless of how you feel about it, the states do in fact have the right to set the rules and regulations for businesses.    No one said you had to like it.  The fact is that the laws are not going to change in order to allow you to discriminate, and there is absolutely nothing unfair about the law.  These things have already been raised and defeated in the past when black people were trying to gain civil rights.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  *Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The familiar refrain...
Click to expand...


Just a fact.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to attempt to explain.
> 
> While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
Click to expand...







Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...

Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  *Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The familiar refrain...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a fact.
Click to expand...


If only it were true. History tells a different story.


----------



## shadow355

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


 
How about being like "me" - having your work place and civil rights violated.....as I STRONGLY believe. At times.....repeatedly.

Me being abused mentally and physically at my current workplace ; as I believe - for me to quit my job, being retaliated against, cause me to be overly stressed ( day after day after day of work and being forced to work many hours and repetitive overtime when my other co-workers did not have to work over ).....and many other reasons.

Me being separated / segregated at my job by my co-workers.

When you take report off from hourly people, the calls keep coming in and coming in...as long as you call you call the foreman and let them know after every call. But when you let the reports offs stack up; and call the department foremen just before the shift starts.....the report offs.....people that call to report off ; is greatly minimized. GEEZE how do you know you are under surveillance at "The Gate" ( Gate One ).

Women, like my past job ; sort of tease and flirt with mw at work, and those women are somewhat "Older" ( mid - late 50's , when I am :WAS: in my 30s in age ).

People like your last job, trying to get you to use marijuana at your current job.

"Older women" at the gym look at me like I am a steak sandwich - as is my intepretation. A repeat of my last job in a "Metropolitan Area".

"Older women" at work showing off their breast, wearing tight clothes and short skirts around, or near me.


   Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

BlackFlag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then.  Like Iran or Sudan.
Click to expand...

 
 How about where I work ; where some people cannot keep / are not capable......of keeping a secret.

 "SOME" People in Human Resources whom sanction the activity of supervisors...... where an employee(s) can be harassed physically ( through hours of difficult and/or very strenuous work ) , mentally and verbally. Where Human Resources sanctions harassing activity toward subordinate employees, and /  or fails to reprimand supervisors for wrongful activity toward a subordinate.

 Where some employees are singled out for harsher work environments than others. Where some employees have to work overtime....and other employees do not have to work overtime.

 I get a long break every month - six days off in a row. I have had to work many days of my long break, while others were not required to work.

 Previously my schedule was four days on and four days off, when I first started my job. On my four says off...I had to work. Sometimes it was 14 and 16 hour days.

 THEN we went to the terrible "21 shift" and I still had to work over, many days were again - 14 and 16 hour days. Work, go home, get about 6 to 7 hours of sleep and go back to work again. MAYBE get forced to work past 12 hours.....and work another 14 or 16 hour shift, because the biggest and most common reason....was one of my co-workers coming in "On Shift" called off. I believe it as all a "ruse" to get one ( myself ) , or a few of us to quit our jobs. Work hard, work many hours of overtime, and work many days that you were supposed to be off.

 Work where I do, and some people have terrible leadership ability and display poor responsibility.

 Have a job where some leaders fail leadership skills, and have a serious neglect for subordinate personnel, their welfare and their morale ; like where I work and at times have to deal with.

 Work where co-workers from all levels like to play mind games with you.....like they do me  =  monopolize your time - act juvenile - tell false stories about events, instances at your work place; and do their darndest to mislead you.

  Work with people who go to great lengths to make your job harder, make your job more difficult and time consuming.....like they do me.

 Work where people, as I believe - intentionally mislead you about your job - like where to go inside the plant, whom to see, false emails, fabricated emails, misleading emails, emails sent to you to make you scared and worried.

 People whom manipulate the radio conversations ( radio traffic ) on the company land mobile radio ( UHF radio ).  Dispatching ( and transmitting ) false information, false data, false / fabricated locations. It like their is two people.....with the same voice talking.

 Deal with, like me.....radio conversations on the company land mobile radio that is false, misleading at times, and meant to dispatch you to the wrong location.



 Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

dblack said:


> If only it were true. History tells a different story.


 
  That people need to be held accountable for their wrongful deeds and actions. That those whom do wrong, and those whom are malicious......need to pay for the terrible acts that they have committed ; especially when those wrongful and ill acts are towards others.

  Shadow 355


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained MANY times now.  It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people.  The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
Click to expand...







I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## dblack

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws.  I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make.  That is another story entirely though.  You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people.  The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice.  Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.
> 
> So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
Click to expand...







I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.

You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...


Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## dblack

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It works the same for everyone.  Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either.  Targeted?  Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...
> 
> Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
Click to expand...







You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.

If you don't like it that really is to bad.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## dblack

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> If you don't like it that really is to bad.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


Whether I like it is irrelevant. I'm interested in debating the ideas, not personal grudge matches.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> If you don't like it that really is to bad.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether I like it is irrelevant. I'm interested in debating the ideas, not personal grudge matches.
Click to expand...







And I want the right to eat pork chops, drink wine, and smoke a cigar, in any restaurant I go into and I want to do butt assed naked because whether you like or not is irrelevant.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> If you don't like it that really is to bad.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "until"?  Do you know that they haven't been?  Anyways, the law would apply to them too.  Apparently, you don't understand the law.  The law states that you cannot discriminate against a person based on gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation.  Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing on the web that indicates it has. You can provide verbal assurances that it does happen all you want and I won't believe you. Provide me links proving that it's happening or has happened. Otherwise yes UNTIL I see some law suits against bakeries of other religions happening the SSM crowd is no better than the people they say are discriminating against them. Oh!... I worked for the government for over twenty years. I don't trust them to do the right thing or not discriminate either so don't tell me about how the law protects. I'm sure the whistleblowers believed that crap.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> If you don't like it that really is to bad.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is pretty clear. It's not based on who is doing the discriminating. Christians have been the first to fined because there are a lot more of them in the US. I see no reason the government would give Jewish or Muslim bakeries (or other businesses) a pass on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my stance on this issue quite clear.
> 
> You don't like the fact that I'm calling the progressives and SSM crowd discriminating then let's see some media coverage showing law suits against Muslim, Jewish, and other religion, bakeries that shows the law is being utilized in that respect. Don't tell me there aren't any bakeries of those sorts...
> 
> 
> Let's see some links to those law suits of discrimination of other religions bakeries. Otherwise you're no better than the people you're saying discriminate against you.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me, so stow the personal nonsense. The fact of the matter is, there are far more Christians in the US than any other religions, so Christian bakers have been the first to fall victim to these laws. But it's ridiculous, and counter-productive, to imagine that this is an attack on Christians. It's an attack on bias against gays, particularly regarding gay marriage. If an atheist baker took a similar stand against gay marriage, I'm quite sure they'd be prosecuted as well. That fact that the handful of cases so far have involved Christians isn't indicative of any kind of orchestrated attack. It's an entirely predictable result of passing these kinds of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about me either but until I see some lawsuits proving otherwise that is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> If you don't like it that really is to bad.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether I like it is irrelevant. I'm interested in debating the ideas, not personal grudge matches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I want the right to eat pork chops, drink wine, and smoke a cigar, in any restaurant I go into and I want to do butt assed naked because whether you like or not is irrelevant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Obviously you are ignorant and have a very POOR understanding of the laws.  Please, don't ever open up a business.


----------



## ChrisL

Also, I've read a little more background of the "Sweet Cakes" case. Apparently the female co owner (the wife, Melissa I believe was her name), had actually been talking with one half of the lesbian for months about her upcoming wedding plans.  Melissa was more than willing to make them a cake and they were actually acquaintances.  It wasn't until the women came in and had to deal with the husband when problems began.  HE apparently told them "nope, I won't bake a cake for lesbian/gay weddings."  I guess Melissa went along with what her husband wanted instead of sticking to her original agreement.  So yeah, this was NOT some kind of nefarious setup or "gotcha" game.


----------



## Bonzi

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


 
There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
Click to expand...


Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."


----------



## dblack

Bonzi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Also, I've read a little more background of the "Sweet Cakes" case. Apparently the female co owner (the wife, Melissa I believe was her name), had actually been talking with one half of the lesbian for months about her upcoming wedding plans.  Melissa was more than willing to make them a cake and they were actually acquaintances.  It wasn't until the women came in and had to deal with the husband when problems began.  HE apparently told them "nope, I won't bake a cake for lesbian/gay weddings."  I guess Melissa went along with what her husband wanted instead of sticking to her original agreement.  So yeah, this was NOT some kind of nefarious setup or "gotcha" game.



If the bakery had agreed to make the cake, and then reneged, the couple would have had a fairly straightforward case. I don't really know whether this was contrived to make a political point, or not, but in either case I don't see any point on whining about the state enforcing the law, or people taking advantage of it. If a law leads to injustice or loss of rights, the sooner we find out - and do something about it - the better.


----------



## Bonzi

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I've read a little more background of the "Sweet Cakes" case. Apparently the female co owner (the wife, Melissa I believe was her name), had actually been talking with one half of the lesbian for months about her upcoming wedding plans.  Melissa was more than willing to make them a cake and they were actually acquaintances.  It wasn't until the women came in and had to deal with the husband when problems began.  HE apparently told them "nope, I won't bake a cake for lesbian/gay weddings."  I guess Melissa went along with what her husband wanted instead of sticking to her original agreement.  So yeah, this was NOT some kind of nefarious setup or "gotcha" game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakery had agreed to make the cake, and then reneged, the couple would have had a fairly straightforward case. I don't really know whether this was contrived to make a political point, or not, but in either case I don't see any point on whining about the state enforcing the law, or people taking advantage of it. If a law leads to injustice or loss of rights, the sooner we find out - and do something about it - the better.
Click to expand...

 
It's wrong to force people to go against their religious beliefs, especially when there are other options and it's not harmful or detrimental to anyone.

I'm so sick of the cry babies and people USING their "minority" status to abuse the system.
Sickening...


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
Click to expand...

 
They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.


----------



## dblack

Bonzi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I've read a little more background of the "Sweet Cakes" case. Apparently the female co owner (the wife, Melissa I believe was her name), had actually been talking with one half of the lesbian for months about her upcoming wedding plans.  Melissa was more than willing to make them a cake and they were actually acquaintances.  It wasn't until the women came in and had to deal with the husband when problems began.  HE apparently told them "nope, I won't bake a cake for lesbian/gay weddings."  I guess Melissa went along with what her husband wanted instead of sticking to her original agreement.  So yeah, this was NOT some kind of nefarious setup or "gotcha" game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakery had agreed to make the cake, and then reneged, the couple would have had a fairly straightforward case. I don't really know whether this was contrived to make a political point, or not, but in either case I don't see any point on whining about the state enforcing the law, or people taking advantage of it. If a law leads to injustice or loss of rights, the sooner we find out - and do something about it - the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's wrong to force people to go against their religious beliefs, especially when there are other options and it's not harmful or detrimental to anyone.
> 
> I'm so sick of the cry babies and people USING their "minority" status to abuse the system.
> Sickening...
Click to expand...


It's wrong to force people to go against their own petty preferences as well. But you lose me with the last bit. Unless they're deliberately twisting a law against its intended purpose, I can't fault people for using the rules to their advantage. That's what everyone does. If doing that produces bad results, then the fault is with the law, not with the people who follow it.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
Click to expand...


Then don't open a business serving the public.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
Click to expand...


Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think you are being an "arse" because of your religious beliefs. That's pretty narrow minded and intolerant.  Saying someone's religious beliefs don't matter or are 'stupid' is just as intolerant (if not more so) than what you are defending....and, btw, I'm not saying anything about legalities, the law is the law, but doesn't make it right....


----------



## Ravi

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you are being an "arse" because of your religious beliefs. That's pretty narrow minded and intolerant.  Saying someone's religious beliefs don't matter or are 'stupid' is just as intolerant (if not more so) than what you are defending....and, btw, I'm not saying anything about legalities, the law is the law, but doesn't make it right....
Click to expand...

Except when you are criticizing Catholics, amirite?


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
Click to expand...

 
Or do and deal with the consequences.  Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing what is right and fair.
Christian's have been persecuted from day 1, I don't expect it will end now............


----------



## Bonzi

Ravi said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you are being an "arse" because of your religious beliefs. That's pretty narrow minded and intolerant.  Saying someone's religious beliefs don't matter or are 'stupid' is just as intolerant (if not more so) than what you are defending....and, btw, I'm not saying anything about legalities, the law is the law, but doesn't make it right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you are criticizing Catholics, amirite?
Click to expand...

 
I don't believe Catholics teach good Christian doctrine in many instances.
You should not call anyone "Father" but God, for example.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
Click to expand...


I don't believe we should relinquish our rights simply because money is involved. Every social interaction we have involves trading value, in one form or another.


----------



## Ravi

Bonzi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you are being an "arse" because of your religious beliefs. That's pretty narrow minded and intolerant.  Saying someone's religious beliefs don't matter or are 'stupid' is just as intolerant (if not more so) than what you are defending....and, btw, I'm not saying anything about legalities, the law is the law, but doesn't make it right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you are criticizing Catholics, amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Catholics teach good Christian doctrine in many instances.
> You should not call anyone "Father" but God, for example.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Ravi

So a cake tasting was set up, knowing the couple in question was gay, and then they were told to piss off because they were gay.

These bakers are twits.


----------



## Bonzi

Ravi said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Jim Crow laws are wrong and it's imperative that government treat everyone equal. But how we treat each other is entirely a matter of personal preference, and government should stay out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to business matters, it isn't.  Like I told you, you are still free to be an arse in your personal life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you are being an "arse" because of your religious beliefs. That's pretty narrow minded and intolerant.  Saying someone's religious beliefs don't matter or are 'stupid' is just as intolerant (if not more so) than what you are defending....and, btw, I'm not saying anything about legalities, the law is the law, but doesn't make it right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you are criticizing Catholics, amirite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe Catholics teach good Christian doctrine in many instances.
> You should not call anyone "Father" but God, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think Catholics are asshats or stupid, I just think they are wrong.
You DO know that you can think someone is WRONG and be tolerant at the same time, right?


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
Click to expand...


That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or do and deal with the consequences.  Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing what is right and fair.
> Christian's have been persecuted from day 1, I don't expect it will end now............
Click to expand...


Oh, good grief.  I know, you poor thing.  You can't discriminate against people.  How sad.


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> So a cake tasting was set up, knowing the couple in question was gay, and then they were told to piss off because they were gay.
> 
> These bakers are twits.



Should it be illegal to be a twit?


----------



## Bonzi

Ravi said:


> So a cake tasting was set up, knowing the couple in question was gay, and then they were told to piss off because they were gay.
> 
> These bakers are twits.


 
Is that right?  They set up a cake tasting for a wedding cake, then, said no?
Maybe they had a "crisis of conscience".... or prayed about it .... they were just standing behind their beliefs, just because you don't agree doesn't make them twits (btw, I don't call Catholic's twits.... )


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or do and deal with the consequences.  Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing what is right and fair.
> Christian's have been persecuted from day 1, I don't expect it will end now............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, good grief.  I know, you poor thing.  You can't discriminate against people.  How sad.
Click to expand...

 
.. but it's OK to discriminate and be intolerant of Christian's... I see....


----------



## dblack

Ravi said:


> So a cake tasting was set up, knowing the couple in question was gay, and then they were told to piss off because they were gay.
> 
> These bakers are twits.



Should it be illegal to be a twit?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.









I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Bonzi

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

 
Eye In The Sky -APP awesome........


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.









Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


That would be "about learning."    Is "lookee" a word?  I don't know, but it comes up on my spell checker as not being a word.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact.  You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told.  If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


That is because you keep declaring your ignorance on the topic.    You have no "reference base."


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or do and deal with the consequences.  Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing what is right and fair.
> Christian's have been persecuted from day 1, I don't expect it will end now............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, good grief.  I know, you poor thing.  You can't discriminate against people.  How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .. but it's OK to discriminate and be intolerant of Christian's... I see....
Click to expand...


Nope, the law covers religious beliefs as well.  If you go to a store in that particular state and a person tells you they won't serve you because of your religious beliefs, then you can file a complaint.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple  -  no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact.  You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told.  If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.
Click to expand...


And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.


----------



## ChrisL

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Nice and slow this time.  It has nothing to do with the product being supplied.  It is about discriminating.  You can refuse to make products.  What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact.  You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told.  If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.
Click to expand...


Of course they do.  The states set the rules and regulations for how you run business.  The states have determined that discrimination harms people and is a violation of their civil rights.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> Then don't open a business serving the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact.  You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told.  If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  The states set the rules and regulations for how you run business.  The states have determined that discrimination harms people and is a violation of their civil rights.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know what they've determined. And it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how shopping in a given store can be considered a 'right'. It's not a freedom, it's the power to force others to act against their will. And it's not harm to not do something for someone. The concept would be laughable if so many people didn't accept it as a valid legal precedent.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.



The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services. That's problematic. It can create vast disparities racially, by gender, religion, etc. And these disparities have historically come with a high historical cost.

Additionally, the basic premise of capitalism is choice and knowledge. Discrimination interferes with choice.  And thus interferes with capitalism.

Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services
Click to expand...


Exactly. The core question here is who should control the distribution of good and services - the government, or the people.



> Additionally, the basic premise of capitalism is choice and knowledge. Discrimination interferes with choice.  And thus interferes with capitalism.


 Discrimination IS choice. Overriding such choices with state mandates is the opposite.


> Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.



We already do many things that aren't just. The power of government should be reserved for protecting our rights, not violating them for the sake of convenience.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. The core question here is who should control the distribution of good and services - the government, or the people.
Click to expand...


The people who passed the PA laws requiring basic standards of conduct in business. Within the bounds of individual rights the authority of the people is quite broad, especially on the state level.

And should be.

And you completely glossed over the vast disparities discrimination can and has created historically. How these disparities limit opportunity, stratify society, create social instability and are used as means of coercion, exploitation, abuse and control. You know, all the great failures of Libertarianism.



> Discrimination IS choice. Overriding such choices with state mandates is the opposite.



Consumer choice. And consumer knowledge. Limiting consumer choice to those of a particular color or religion is bad capitalism. As it grossly reduces efficiency, the primary benefit of the capitalist system.



> Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already do many things that aren't just. The power of government should be reserved for protecting our rights, not violating them for the sake of convenience.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

I don't consider any of those things to be unjust. The prevention of fraud is not unjust. The preventing of baiting and switching is not unjust. Licensing a business is not unjust. Basic codes of conduct in business have been established and enforced for about as long as there has been civilization.

Again, you're running headlong into the great ivory tower failures of libertarianism: its utterly inability to mitigate private abuses of power in the real world. Fraud, exploitation, abuse, control, crippling discrimination, regional monopolies, price fixing, etc all have vast historical precedent. Not as hypothetical, but as examples of things that have and of course will happen unless we prevent them.

And Libertarianism can do exactly dick about any of them.

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse. Private power goes completely unchecked. And these kind of abuses go unchecked. As while Libertarianism can recognize the potential for abuse of government power, they lack the ability to comprehend or at least acknowledge the horrendous social and personal effects of abuses of concentrations of private power.

Its one of the reasons that libertarianism is inherently exploitative...and of course, unsustainable. As concentrations of private power grow, corruption and abuse grow with them. With no checks, handfuls of private parties become the political and economic power brokers. And with it, the erosion of libertarianism. Its a self defeating system. And of course, deeply exploitative. The eras in our country that most closely matched it were based deeply in indentured servitude and slavery. Where people could be purchased or sold. And small number of men wielded vast power over huge numbers of individuals. With virtually no checks to that power.

That's not a coincidence.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.



Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.
Click to expand...


And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few. Who then corrupt your 'we don't bother checking private abuses of power because we fantasize that nothing could possibly go wrong' libertarian pipe dream.

This is exactly why libertarianism is unsustainable. 1) Its hideously exploitative. As the slavery and indentured servitude our more libertarian past depended upon demonstrates. 2) Unchecked private power will inevitably corrupt the system of government. 

Libertarianism is an ivory tower concept that doesn't play well in the real world.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.
Click to expand...

Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.
Click to expand...


Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if  you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.

That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.

Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.

And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: *concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value. *

There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.


----------



## DCJ

dblack said:


> And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.


I have done an exhaustive search of the _konsitituion_ & have not found that??  Have a link??


----------



## ChrisL

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if  you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.
> 
> That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.
> 
> Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.
> 
> And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: *concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value. *
> 
> There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.
Click to expand...


Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.  I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc.  I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve."  It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business.  Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if  you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.
> 
> That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.
> 
> Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.
> 
> And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: *concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value. *
> 
> There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.
Click to expand...

You're way off base here, but I'd rather not get bogged down with the usual libertarian strawman. The topic is government infringement on our freedom of association, on the basic freedom to decide who you collaborate with in life, and who you'd rather avoid. I can certainly understand that our freedoms are limited by any harm they might cause others. But that's where the basic concept of discrimination law fails.


----------



## dblack

ChrisL said:


> Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.  I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc.  I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve."  It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business.  Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.



I agree it's bad business practice, but how are you seeing it as such? In particular, how does it qualify as something government should address?


----------



## shadow355

dblack said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.  I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc.  I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve."  It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business.  Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it's bad business practice, but how are you seeing it as such? In particular, how does it qualify as something government should address?
Click to expand...

 
 This past Friday, I went to the dealership where I bought my truck.....and have it serviced.

1)  I walked in the service department and asked to have the oil changed I my truck. The attendant, whom I have never seen before ; told me I needed and appointment. I told him that in the ten years I have been doing business there, I have never needed an appointment ( it has never been extremely busy. I said I would come back later. I was at the south end of the county seat, just outside the city limits near the interstate.

2)  I decided when I was driving away, to go to the dealerships "sister" dealership just down the road a few miles ; in the south end of the county seat. I walked toward the service department and as I did, I looked inside the garage to the right of the service department. No vehicles waiting, and there was only two or three vehicles inside. It is late morning, about an hour and a half before noon. I have time to get my oil changed and my tires rotated. I walked through the glass door and talked to the service person. I asked if I could get my oil changed, and he told me that they were busy, and I would have to make an appointment. I did not argue, I knew better. I was getting the "run around" in my opinion.....from both dealerships owned by the same "Autogroup".


   Shadow 355


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be "about learning."    Is "lookee" a word?  I don't know, but it comes up on my spell checker as not being a word.
Click to expand...







I see... Now you want to talk about sailing ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Otherwise if you wish to insist on correcting my spelling and grammar I'll hire you at $0.01 an hour which is all I'm willing to pay for obsessive compulsive grammar police.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you keep declaring your ignorance on the topic.    You have no "reference base."
Click to expand...







As do you.

The moment the US government quits discriminating against all willing companions right to marry as they choose you might have a toe to stand on. Until then the judicial system is violating the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act with their ruling and are a major disgrace in their own discrimination. Otherwise all their ruling is is a massive discrimination against other mature willing companions because at this juncture it's none of the governments business how other mature willing companions arrange a marriage.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

No

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you keep declaring your ignorance on the topic.    You have no "reference base."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do you.
> 
> The moment the US government quits discriminating against all willing companions right to marry as they choose you might have a toe to stand on. Until then the judicial system is violating the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act with their ruling and are a major disgrace in their own discrimination. Otherwise all their ruling is is a massive discrimination against other mature willing companions because at this juncture it's none of the governments business how other mature willing companions arrange a marriage.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Absolutely not.  Marriage and how you conduct business are two entirely different things.


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be "about learning."    Is "lookee" a word?  I don't know, but it comes up on my spell checker as not being a word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... Now you want to talk about sailing ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Otherwise if you wish to insist on correcting my spelling and grammar I'll hire you at $0.01 an hour which is all I'm willing to pay for obsessive compulsive grammar police.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


I make way more than that editing reports at my job, thanks anyway.  I'm just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.  Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman.  Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries?  Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because you keep declaring your ignorance on the topic.    You have no "reference base."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do you.
> 
> The moment the US government quits discriminating against all willing companions right to marry as they choose you might have a toe to stand on. Until then the judicial system is violating the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act with their ruling and are a major disgrace in their own discrimination. Otherwise all their ruling is is a massive discrimination against other mature willing companions because at this juncture it's none of the governments business how other mature willing companions arrange a marriage.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  Marriage and how you conduct business are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...







The courts allowing SSM and discriminating against all other mature willing companions came prior to the SSM couples having an issue with businesses. If you want their freedom to declare how their being discriminated on this issue then have the courts quit violating the Constitution and discriminating against other mature willing companions. Otherwise the courts, and you, are no better than the people you say are discriminating against you.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be "about learning."    Is "lookee" a word?  I don't know, but it comes up on my spell checker as not being a word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... Now you want to talk about sailing ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Otherwise if you wish to insist on correcting my spelling and grammar I'll hire you at $0.01 an hour which is all I'm willing to pay for obsessive compulsive grammar police.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make way more than that editing reports at my job, thanks anyway.  I'm just trying to be helpful.
Click to expand...







And I'm changing my stance about your special minority group being any better than the people they claim are discriminating against them. Especially when they start murdering people on live TV because of their beliefs.

*****SMILE*****


----------

