Red scare of the 1950's, today we have the racist scare

[TNHarley]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

 

[TNHarley]

Kind of raping the intent of that IMO
Hek, it also says that "among these are liberty"

 

[Slade3200]

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

I understand. This whole conversation is me explaining and justifying my position on the laws i do not support lol.
So it being the law is irrelevant to this.

Had those laws not been passed, had so many Americans not fought bled and died for their passage we would still be a slave owning and segregated nation. Is that what you'd like to bring back? If you are fine with the anti-slavery law, then would you prefer our post civil war society when Jim Crow ruled? Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

 

[Slash]

What right would that be?

What about the unalienable right to life. You work in a grocery store but won't allow someone to buy infant formula. Or you work in a drug store and won't fill a prescription someone needs.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

Thats an infringement of rights. Its a terrible analogy considering my entire argument.
Im starting to repeat myself..

 

[TNHarley]

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

I understand. This whole conversation is me explaining and justifying my position on the laws i do not support lol.
So it being the law is irrelevant to this.

Had those laws not been passed, had so many Americans not fought bled and died for their passage we would still be a slave owning and segregated nation. Is that what you'd like to bring back? If you are fine with the anti-slavery law, then would you prefer our post civil war society when Jim Crow ruled? Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

Why do you think i would support slavery? Lol... have you actually read my arguments at all? deer geebus

 

[Slash]

Again, that would only be feasible if people were entitled to others property.
They could very well do that. If the town was that much of a collective asshole, those people would be better off to just move. I know i wouldnt want to live around people like that. Especially if i was the target! lol
Public buses are govt institutions arent they?
Just to be clear, i believe individuals should be able to discriminate against anything. Im not just arguing for race or religion. But any reason like National origin or, considering a few states, sexuality.

I agree I wouldn't want to live there either. But does that mean I don't have the right to pursue happiness or life where I choose?

I'm pretty much against that line of thought. I think if you want to discriminate against race and put the coloreds over on that water fountain and in the back of the bus, I'm going to be on the opposite side of that belief.

I think for a country to say we are all equal, it has to protect equality first and foremost.

 

[TNHarley]

What right would that be?

What about the unalienable right to life. You work in a grocery store but won't allow someone to buy infant formula. Or you work in a drug store and won't fill a prescription someone needs.

Its not really up to the individual. I would think it would need to be company policy.
As i said before, freedom isnt free. I will never support statism and forced conformity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.

I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What's evil about it?

From a religious point of view, Homosexuality is an abomination to God.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Is it more or less of an abomination as pre marital sex? Using the lords name in vain? Getting a tattoo?

I'm not here to make religious calls. All I am saying is how people of religion feel. As for the other things you mentioned, those are personal decisions and doesn't involve forcing people to be part of your practices.

 

[TNHarley]

Again, that would only be feasible if people were entitled to others property.
They could very well do that. If the town was that much of a collective asshole, those people would be better off to just move. I know i wouldnt want to live around people like that. Especially if i was the target! lol
Public buses are govt institutions arent they?
Just to be clear, i believe individuals should be able to discriminate against anything. Im not just arguing for race or religion. But any reason like National origin or, considering a few states, sexuality.

I agree I wouldn't want to live there either. But does that mean I don't have the right to pursue happiness or life where I choose?

I'm pretty much against that line of thought. I think if you want to discriminate against race and put the coloreds over on that water fountain and in the back of the bus, I'm going to be on the opposite side of that belief.

I think for a country to say we are all equal, it has to protect equality first and foremost.

I will be on the opposite side of that belief as well, but i would fight for their right to be a bigot.
I believe every person having the right to discriminate for whatever reason IS equality. FORCING someone to do something against their will and their own property ISNT.
Your argument gives certain people more rights than others. My argument is equal across the board.
Do you understand what equality even is?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so how is that different than making a gay wedding cake? Do you think wedding cakes have no indication on them what the cake is for?

They are wedding cakes. You cannot tell the difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a straight wedding. A cake is a cake.

No baker is required to carry Bride and Bride or Groom and Groom wedding toppers and refusing to provide one would not be discriminatory. Not baking the same cake for couple A that you would bake for couple B is discriminatory. Get it now?

No, I don't, because I can't find in the Constitution where religious rights are excluded when you operate a business.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.

I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Christianity.

In 1968, Anne Newman, a black woman, sued a barbecue restaurant called Piggy Park because it refused to serve her. The owner of that restaurant, Maurice Bessinger, was the head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People. He claimed that serving black people violated his religious principles. Newman won.

Probably because his religion didn't actually have not serving blacks as part of their creed. I'm not talking about individuals who falsely used religion to advance their political agenda, I'm talking about a religion that has not serving blacks as part of their religion.

 

[Slade3200]

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

Thats an infringement of rights. Its a terrible analogy considering my entire argument.
Im starting to repeat myself..

You are saying that rape infringes on somebody else's rights and I am making the argument that denying them service in commerce also infringes on somebody else's rights. Slash has made the same argument. That makes my two examples comparable. If you are defending the bigots rights then it is a similar to defending the rapists rights. Both actions are against the law, the only difference is you don't agree with the anti-discrimination laws... I'm sure the rapist doesn't agree with anti-rape laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the problem the way I see it. If a bakery can be sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, where is the line afterwards?

I don't think anybody should be forced to take a job they don't want to do. For instance on several occasions, I called out professionals to do various work for me. They came out, took measurements or whatever and gave me an estimate, but when I called them back to have them do the job, they never returned my call.

I don't think I should have the right to sue them because they didn't like the job. They wasted my time or the time of others who were here to give them access to look things over. If you don't want to do the job, screw you, there are plenty of people that want my money. I'll never call you again or refer you to anybody else I know.

While you don't have the ability to sue those people because they didn't take the job, if you have clear proof that they discriminated against you, you do.

Nobody in my opinion is forcing those bakers to be bakers. They can choose any job they want, just follow the legal laws to perform the task. Just like nobody would ever force a Christian who doesn't believe in premarital sex to be a porn star. If your belief is that under no circumstance would you ever take a life, nobody is forcing you to become a police officer.

So if the KKK came to town and told a black baker he has to make a cake for their rally, he should by law be forced to make the cake?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

As long as it is a cake they would normally make. You can't compel speech.

Someone from the KKK ordering a cake from a black baker and telling them it is for a KKK rally, would be unwise, but yes, the baker should bake the cake...with a "no money back" policy.

And if he refuses, he should be sued out of business?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It would depend upon the public accommodation laws of the locality. The KKK could say they were discriminated upon because they are Christians maybe.

Maybe, but the point is that government should not be forcing people to work against their religion or conscience.

 

[TNHarley]

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

Thats an infringement of rights. Its a terrible analogy considering my entire argument.
Im starting to repeat myself..

You are saying that rape infringes on somebody else's rights and I am making the argument that denying them service in commerce also infringes on somebody else's rights. Slash has made the same argument. That makes my two examples comparable. If you are defending the bigots rights then it is a similar to defending the rapists rights. Both actions are against the law, the only difference is you don't agree with the anti-discrimination laws... I'm sure the rapist doesn't agree with anti-rape laws.

And what i have stated 10 times is that would only be feasible if people had a right to others private property.
Comparing rape and shopping is ignorant.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

I understand. This whole conversation is me explaining and justifying my position on the laws i do not support lol.
So it being the law is irrelevant to this.

Had those laws not been passed, had so many Americans not fought bled and died for their passage we would still be a slave owning and segregated nation. Is that what you'd like to bring back? If you are fine with the anti-slavery law, then would you prefer our post civil war society when Jim Crow ruled? Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

Why do you think i would support slavery? Lol... have you actually read my arguments at all? deer geebus

You said you didn't agree with the laws, I took it back to slavery and also gave you an out if you didn't want to go that far. You could take your same argument to say that outlawing slavery is taking away the owners right to own slaves, so I don't know how far you are going with it.... So take it to Jim Crow... Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

 

[Slade3200]

The Supreme Court found it when racists tried to use religion when we desegregated.

I don't know if any religion where segregation was part of their beliefs. However it's very clear that most all religions are against gay lifestyles and activity because most religions recognize it as evil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What's evil about it?

From a religious point of view, Homosexuality is an abomination to God.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Is it more or less of an abomination as pre marital sex? Using the lords name in vain? Getting a tattoo?

I'm not here to make religious calls. All I am saying is how people of religion feel. As for the other things you mentioned, those are personal decisions and doesn't involve forcing people to be part of your practices.

My other examples can be applied. Should people be allowed to deny service to single mothers because they had premarital sex? That is also a sin or an abomination as you put it. See where this can go?

 

[TNHarley]

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

I understand. This whole conversation is me explaining and justifying my position on the laws i do not support lol.
So it being the law is irrelevant to this.

Had those laws not been passed, had so many Americans not fought bled and died for their passage we would still be a slave owning and segregated nation. Is that what you'd like to bring back? If you are fine with the anti-slavery law, then would you prefer our post civil war society when Jim Crow ruled? Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

Why do you think i would support slavery? Lol... have you actually read my arguments at all? deer geebus

You said you didn't agree with the laws, I took it back to slavery and also gave you an out if you didn't want to go that far. You could take your same argument to say that outlawing slavery is taking away the owners right to own slaves, so I don't know how far you are going with it.... So take it to Jim Crow... Do you think that society was better back then or better after what we've evolved to after the passage of the Civil Rights act?

I stated multiple times that i am against institutional discrimination and liberties that infringe on others.
No one has a right to own people.
You are raping my own intent like you are the DoI

 

[Slade3200]

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

Thats an infringement of rights. Its a terrible analogy considering my entire argument.
Im starting to repeat myself..

You are saying that rape infringes on somebody else's rights and I am making the argument that denying them service in commerce also infringes on somebody else's rights. Slash has made the same argument. That makes my two examples comparable. If you are defending the bigots rights then it is a similar to defending the rapists rights. Both actions are against the law, the only difference is you don't agree with the anti-discrimination laws... I'm sure the rapist doesn't agree with anti-rape laws.

And what i have stated 10 times is that would only be feasible if people had a right to others private property.
Comparing rape and shopping is ignorant.

Its more than shopping... Its medical, its food, its transportation, its livelihood, its education, it goes well beyond shopping and whether you like it or not it is the law. A rapists that believes men have the right to mate with whatever women they want because they don't believe women are equals to men could use your same logic to oppose rape laws and defend their freedom to do what they want. I know it is a more extreme than your example, but like I said, thousands have people have died over racism in this country. Blacks used to hang from trees. This is more than a shopping issue.

 

[TNHarley]

So, their happiness is more important than the bigots happiness? Hmmm.

Yes, just as the rape victims happiness is more important that the rapists.

Thats an infringement of rights. Its a terrible analogy considering my entire argument.
Im starting to repeat myself..

You are saying that rape infringes on somebody else's rights and I am making the argument that denying them service in commerce also infringes on somebody else's rights. Slash has made the same argument. That makes my two examples comparable. If you are defending the bigots rights then it is a similar to defending the rapists rights. Both actions are against the law, the only difference is you don't agree with the anti-discrimination laws... I'm sure the rapist doesn't agree with anti-rape laws.

And what i have stated 10 times is that would only be feasible if people had a right to others private property.
Comparing rape and shopping is ignorant.

Its more than shopping... Its medical, its food, its transportation, its livelihood, its education, it goes well beyond shopping and whether you like it or not it is the law. A rapists that believes men have the right to mate with whatever women they want because they don't believe women are equals to men could use your same logic to oppose rape laws and defend their freedom to do what they want. I know it is a more extreme than your example, but like I said, thousands have people have died over racism in this country. Blacks used to hang from trees. This is more than a shopping issue.

No, they couldnt use my logic for that bullshit Slate. READ WHAT I WRITE
I am sitting here saying i believe everyone should have the same damn rights and you continuously say all this bullcrap. I am sitting here saying liberty ends when others rights are infringed. No one has a right to rape a damn woman. Thats stupid.
Im done. You are so close minded on this you dont even consider MY ACTUAL WORDS.
Good day.