For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Oh, and BTW, it is you and your allies who are doing all the "sniveling" over the law. Not me. Lol! Poor little victim that you are.

 

[MarcATL]

OMG, the gays are ruining my life. They want to be married and they actually EXPECT to be served at stores. My God, the NERVE of those heathens! What an insult to the conservative Christians that they might have to actually serve a gay person!!! Yup, must be the end of the world.

Meltdown achieved.

I think I am going to reward myself with a nice Fresca, or maybe a Caffeine free Diet Dr. pepper.

I was imitating you and your friends. You are all SO upset by the gay people, and you just can't leave them alone and let them live their lives the way THEY see fit. This will NEVER be a truly "free country" with people like you all running away, denying people equality because of your God.

Not my God, their God.

I am upset by people like you who seek validation of your beliefs through forcing others to behave in ways they do not want to, for no good reason. and having your feelings hurt is not a good reason.

Black people were not pissed off because they couldn't sit at a woolworth counter, they were pissed off because the laws created a situation where they were powerless to change the fact they could not sit at the woolworth counter.

The overt noticeable discrimination was a symptom, not a cause.

ROTFLMBAO @ you speaking for blacks.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

it's my observation, not speaking for anyone. and was it really the not getting lunch at woolworth that was the main issue, or the lack of access to education, voting, and economic mobility?

No we were offended by the very fact that that was happening.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Soupnazi630]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

There is a reason why our laws are not setup to allow for discrimination. It doesn't work. It would promote and perpetuate bigotry and discrimination. You are leaving it up to individuals in society to approve or disapprove of any given discrimination. Most people are thinking of themselves and/or their family, so what doesn't affect them wouldn't move them. The government had to step in to rectify the bigotry and discrimination multiple times throughout our history. Leaving it to society wasn't cutting it. So no, that's not a good idea at all.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

There is no evidence that government interference is needed or that it would multiply without government regulation.

This assumes that most people are not smart enough to accept money for goods/services regardless of who it comes from and most people who are working for themselves are probably going to do exactly that.

 

[ChrisL]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

IOW, I don't want to have to serve blacks, women or gays. I want the government to recognize by obsolete religious views and my right to be an asshole. That's basically what you are saying here.

 

[MarcATL]

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Wrong about what exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

 

[MarcATL]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

There is a reason why our laws are not setup to allow for discrimination. It doesn't work. It would promote and perpetuate bigotry and discrimination. You are leaving it up to individuals in society to approve or disapprove of any given discrimination. Most people are thinking of themselves and/or their family, so what doesn't affect them wouldn't move them. The government had to step in to rectify the bigotry and discrimination multiple times throughout our history. Leaving it to society wasn't cutting it. So no, that's not a good idea at all.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

There is no evidence that government interference is needed or that it would multiply without government regulation.

This assumes that most people are not smart enough to accept money for goods/services regardless of who it comes from and most people who are working for themselves are probably going to do exactly that.

The evidence is the bigoted and racist history of this country that needed the government to intervene on behalf of the victims of racism, bigotry and discrimination. If you haven't gotten it by now, then you definitely won't ever get it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Wrong about what exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I think I have made it clear after 60+ pages of what I think is wrong about ChrisL's opinion.

 

[ChrisL]

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

No it doesn't. If you cannot handle doing your job properly and in accordance with the law, then you have no business going into business.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

IOW, I don't want to have to serve blacks, women or gays. I want the government to recognize by obsolete religious views and my right to be an asshole. That's basically what you are saying here.

No, someone else's right to be an "asshole" as you put it.

And frankly, claiming all that crap in their complaint about emotional strain makes that lesbian couple a bunch of assholes.

 

[MarcATL]

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

What is the harm done?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Soupnazi630]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

We are all free to discriminate in private, not in the public sphere. A business is for the public.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Wrong a business by definition ir private property and part of the private sphere just as much as someones home.

A business does not serve the public it trades with select individuals

 

[ChrisL]

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Wrong about what exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I think I have made it clear after 60+ pages of what I think is wrong about ChrisL's opinion.

No, I don't think so. You have done nothing of the sort. The only thing you have done is try to make yourself appear as if YOU are some kind of victim. Pathetic, really.

 

[martybegan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

No it doesn't. If you cannot handle doing your job properly and in accordance with the law, then you have no business going into business.

Says you. So much desire for control of your fellow citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

We are all free to discriminate in private, not in the public sphere. A business is for the public.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Wrong a business by definition ir private property and part of the private sphere just as much as someones home.

A business does not serve the public it trades with select individuals

You are wrong, and the law says that you are. If you cannot abide by the law and do your job, then don't open a business. If you do open a business in the State of Oregon, you have to treat all of your customers the same.

 

[martybegan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Wrong about what exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I think I have made it clear after 60+ pages of what I think is wrong about ChrisL's opinion.

No, I don't think so. You have done nothing of the sort. The only thing you have done is try to make yourself appear as if YOU are some kind of victim. Pathetic, really.

Not even close. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

[ChrisL]

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

No it doesn't. If you cannot handle doing your job properly and in accordance with the law, then you have no business going into business.

Says you. So much desire for control of your fellow citizens.

Says the law in the State of Oregon.

 

[martybegan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Oh, and BTW, it is you and your allies who are doing all the "sniveling" over the law. Not me. Lol! Poor little victim that you are.

Now you are just lashing out in anger. Nothing constructive in your posts for about 3 pages now.

 

[ChrisL]

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Wrong about what exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I think I have made it clear after 60+ pages of what I think is wrong about ChrisL's opinion.

No, I don't think so. You have done nothing of the sort. The only thing you have done is try to make yourself appear as if YOU are some kind of victim. Pathetic, really.

Not even close. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

I would not EVER go to a person such as yourself for help. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

 

[MarcATL]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

We are all free to discriminate in private, not in the public sphere. A business is for the public.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Wrong a business by definition ir private property and part of the private sphere just as much as someones home.

A business does not serve the public it trades with select individuals

No, thats not how it works. Thankfully, everyone with sense understood it differently than you do.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk