Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They want to force others to "accept" them. I can understand that to a point, with the beating them up and things, but those people who do those things are breaking the law. Nobody has to accept anything that they don't agree with in a free country, but I would call this "forced acceptance." It won't work. The only way is through education, not forcing them on people.
It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their leaseI would agree except for the doing business part. That is business and has nothing to do with acceptance in my eyes.
That's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.
...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw
In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.
I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.
Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?
It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.
A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.
Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
What keeps him from molesting little boys in the boys bathroom?And what does that have to do with men in women's bathrooms? Other than it would give a guy like that direct access to his prey where nobody could protest. And if they did, he could sue them?
Got me there. Since up to 40% of all molestations are homosexuals molesting boys. Pretty large molestation track record for a demographic that's such a tiny part of the overall adult population...What keeps him from molesting little boys in the boys bathroom?And what does that have to do with men in women's bathrooms? Other than it would give a guy like that direct access to his prey where nobody could protest. And if they did, he could sue them?
It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their leaseThat's specious thinking. One should be free in one's person, PROPERTY, and path. Forcing someone to put his person and property in service to someone else against his will is a violation of his Liberty. The original language of the Civil Rights act says Public Accommodation, not All Businesses. Denying someone food or lodging is for time critical services...finding a feasible substitute is not always at hand. Shopping for wedding cakes is not a matter of urgent survival needs. Not all businesses fall under the definition of Public Accommodation.
...
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection ....
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - FindLaw
In a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.
I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.
Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?
It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.
A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.
Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
I'm not talking about socialism or communism, I'm just stating a simple fact in our "free" society. You think you own your business or you think you own your house? You don't, you are leasing the right to participate in commerce and to reside on American soil. If you doubt that then try not paying your taxes and see what happens to these assets you "own". Consumer goods are a different story, that T-bone steak, your toothbrush and even your underwear are all yours. But anything that is considered substantial wealth, you are leasing the right to own from the government. This isn't something we are in a threat of becoming... This has been a reality since the implementation of taxation.It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their leaseIn a way, I agree. In other ways, I don't. I do understand what you are saying about your business being your property, but I just cannot abide by that type of blatant discrimination. In your personal life, that's fine. You have a right to associate with whomever you choose but I don't think that's a good way to run a business.
I do know some gay people who are awesome people, and they should be able to shop at any store, etc., in my opinion, so I just can't agree with telling them they have to go to "GayMart" in the next town over. They do pay taxes and contribute to the economy.
Does the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?
It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.
A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.
Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
As if. Here's a good read that pretty much sums things up. We live right now in what is now very close to a Servile State. The alternative is to get rid of centralized control, but that won't happen until a Big Crisis happens.
The USSR without the Gulag
I'm not talking about socialism or communism, I'm just stating a simple fact in our "free" society. You think you own your business or you think you own your house? You don't, you are leasing the right to participate in commerce and to reside on American soil. If you doubt that then try not paying your taxes and see what happens to these assets you "own". Consumer goods are a different story, that T-bone steak, your toothbrush and even your underwear are all yours. But anything that is considered substantial wealth, you are leasing the right to own from the government. This isn't something we are in a threat of becoming... This has been a reality since the implementation of taxation.It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their leaseDoes the State own a private business just because the owner pays taxes?
It's really a shame that the Founders didn't put include "property" in the life, liberty etc. clause. Life without having control of the fruits of one's labor (property) does not exist in a state of Liberty.
A business owner who forgoes the business of willing potential customers is hurting himself, in my opinion, but he's free to do that. And why someone would wish to do business with somebody against his will is beyond me. I wouldn't have wanted my wedding cake made by somebody who was threatened by the government into doing so.
Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
As if. Here's a good read that pretty much sums things up. We live right now in what is now very close to a Servile State. The alternative is to get rid of centralized control, but that won't happen until a Big Crisis happens.
The USSR without the Gulag
the lease clause is our laws and the regulatory and tax code. It's in disguiseI'm not talking about socialism or communism, I'm just stating a simple fact in our "free" society. You think you own your business or you think you own your house? You don't, you are leasing the right to participate in commerce and to reside on American soil. If you doubt that then try not paying your taxes and see what happens to these assets you "own". Consumer goods are a different story, that T-bone steak, your toothbrush and even your underwear are all yours. But anything that is considered substantial wealth, you are leasing the right to own from the government. This isn't something we are in a threat of becoming... This has been a reality since the implementation of taxation.It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Like it or not the government owns everything... We are simply tenants living under their lease
Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
As if. Here's a good read that pretty much sums things up. We live right now in what is now very close to a Servile State. The alternative is to get rid of centralized control, but that won't happen until a Big Crisis happens.
The USSR without the Gulag
Where is the lease clause in the Constitution? I missed that one in civics class.
the lease clause is our laws and the regulatory and tax code. It's in disguiseI'm not talking about socialism or communism, I'm just stating a simple fact in our "free" society. You think you own your business or you think you own your house? You don't, you are leasing the right to participate in commerce and to reside on American soil. If you doubt that then try not paying your taxes and see what happens to these assets you "own". Consumer goods are a different story, that T-bone steak, your toothbrush and even your underwear are all yours. But anything that is considered substantial wealth, you are leasing the right to own from the government. This isn't something we are in a threat of becoming... This has been a reality since the implementation of taxation.It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.Not quite. Die Gedanken sind frei.....
As if. Here's a good read that pretty much sums things up. We live right now in what is now very close to a Servile State. The alternative is to get rid of centralized control, but that won't happen until a Big Crisis happens.
The USSR without the Gulag
Where is the lease clause in the Constitution? I missed that one in civics class.
Nothing imaginary about itthe lease clause is our laws and the regulatory and tax code. It's in disguiseI'm not talking about socialism or communism, I'm just stating a simple fact in our "free" society. You think you own your business or you think you own your house? You don't, you are leasing the right to participate in commerce and to reside on American soil. If you doubt that then try not paying your taxes and see what happens to these assets you "own". Consumer goods are a different story, that T-bone steak, your toothbrush and even your underwear are all yours. But anything that is considered substantial wealth, you are leasing the right to own from the government. This isn't something we are in a threat of becoming... This has been a reality since the implementation of taxation.It's not something I advocate for but it is a reality. Freedom is an illusion that is earned through obedience in all societies under government control. We are fortunate enough to have a government of and by the people.
As if. Here's a good read that pretty much sums things up. We live right now in what is now very close to a Servile State. The alternative is to get rid of centralized control, but that won't happen until a Big Crisis happens.
The USSR without the Gulag
Where is the lease clause in the Constitution? I missed that one in civics class.
Thanks for clearing that up. It's your imaginary friend.
Holy shit you did figure it out!! Damn I gotta let the secret lefty underground leadership know that y'all are into the plan. Kudos on a truly brilliant revelation!I figured it out, this whole BS issue is just another fight in the left wing war on women.
So what is the reason that a man needs to use the woman's room? Because HE, a MAN, FEELs like HE is a woman? Really? So HE doesn't have a problem being in a woman's room he has a problem being in a MEN'S room? So if he uses the woman's room several women might feel uncomforatble but if HE uses the MEN'S room then only one will feel uncomfortable. But again, why should HE feel uncomfortable using either restroom.
Truth is it isn't about using which restroom. It is all about control and the war on women.
Holy shit you did figure it out!! Damn I gotta let the secret lefty underground leadership know that y'all are into the plan. Kudos on a truly brilliant revelation!I figured it out, this whole BS issue is just another fight in the left wing war on women.
So what is the reason that a man needs to use the woman's room? Because HE, a MAN, FEELs like HE is a woman? Really? So HE doesn't have a problem being in a woman's room he has a problem being in a MEN'S room? So if he uses the woman's room several women might feel uncomforatble but if HE uses the MEN'S room then only one will feel uncomfortable. But again, why should HE feel uncomfortable using either restroom.
Truth is it isn't about using which restroom. It is all about control and the war on women.
Former Georgia GOP county chairman arrested for molesting children as young as 4-years-old
According to police Dendy is also wanted by the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office in Michigan, as well as the Laurens Police Department in South Carolina based upon sexual abuse accusations in those states.
Seriously, You should call your boy Levine ASAP and get the news out on the airwaves. Take these woman haters down!Holy shit you did figure it out!! Damn I gotta let the secret lefty underground leadership know that y'all are into the plan. Kudos on a truly brilliant revelation!I figured it out, this whole BS issue is just another fight in the left wing war on women.
So what is the reason that a man needs to use the woman's room? Because HE, a MAN, FEELs like HE is a woman? Really? So HE doesn't have a problem being in a woman's room he has a problem being in a MEN'S room? So if he uses the woman's room several women might feel uncomforatble but if HE uses the MEN'S room then only one will feel uncomfortable. But again, why should HE feel uncomfortable using either restroom.
Truth is it isn't about using which restroom. It is all about control and the war on women.
I am glad you are on board with blathering quickly to the deviant left, they could not have a better spokesman.
Trans friendly laws don't "open little girls bathrooms to sexual predators"
They don't? So a sexual predator tries to walk into a girls room, and they are stopped ... how?
Here's how you know I'm trying to get you to answer that question. I keep asking you that question. Apparently you know you're full of shit since you keep evading and hiding from the question.
What stops them? You're counting on their conscience? What?
You come up with an answer yet, Wytch?
Still got nothing, huh wytchie?
Again, this is why I don't have any reason to answer your questions, you don't answer mine. My question is completely straight forward. Yet mostly you hide and once in a while you post a bunch of crap that doesn't remotely address the question
Trans friendly laws don't "open little girls bathrooms to sexual predators"
They don't? So a sexual predator tries to walk into a girls room, and they are stopped ... how?
Here's how you know I'm trying to get you to answer that question. I keep asking you that question. Apparently you know you're full of shit since you keep evading and hiding from the question.
What stops them? You're counting on their conscience? What?
You come up with an answer yet, Wytch?
Still got nothing, huh wytchie?
Again, this is why I don't have any reason to answer your questions, you don't answer mine. My question is completely straight forward. Yet mostly you hide and once in a while you post a bunch of crap that doesn't remotely address the question
No public safety risks in cities with transgender anti-discrimination rules
