Refusal over personal beliefs

[kaz]

Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

That's the entire point. The PA laws are NOT consistent. They allow certain discrimination, meaning of course that some get more protection than others, and they are wholly unenforcable.

Let's take a person like SeaWytch, for example. Does ANYONE doubt that she would sue and claim she was discriminate against solely based on being gay regardless of any real reason if she was refused service by a company? Of course she would sue, and we all know that the onus would THEN be on the business to prove that they discriminated for another reason, a legal reason. In other words, that company would be guilty until they prove they were innocent. In effect, you can't refuse service to a gay person for ANY reason for a rightful fear of losing your business.

You know that do you?

Shows what you "know"

You post it every day on message boards. Geez, you right wingers don't get anything.

You also never get tired of being an eight year old

 

[Seawytch]

Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

 

[bendog]

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Imo, the Boss did basically the same thing as a non-baking baker.

 

[Seawytch]

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

That's the entire point. The PA laws are NOT consistent. They allow certain discrimination, meaning of course that some get more protection than others, and they are wholly unenforcable.

Let's take a person like SeaWytch, for example. Does ANYONE doubt that she would sue and claim she was discriminate against solely based on being gay regardless of any real reason if she was refused service by a company? Of course she would sue, and we all know that the onus would THEN be on the business to prove that they discriminated for another reason, a legal reason. In other words, that company would be guilty until they prove they were innocent. In effect, you can't refuse service to a gay person for ANY reason for a rightful fear of losing your business.

You know that do you?

Shows what you "know"

You post it every day on message boards. Geez, you right wingers don't get anything.

You also never get tired of being an eight year old

Oh, so anything I perceive from your posts must be true because you post here everyday? Good to know.

The irony of you calling anyone an eight year old as you throw a tantrum and demand Springsteen pay a fine for "discrimination"...but you can't say who was discriminated against.

It is to laugh.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Your logic is STUPID.

Do you even know what discrimination means? Words have meanings.

discrimination
play
noun dis·crim·i·na·tion \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of discrimination

• : the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
  

Now CLEARLY Bruce cancelled his scheduled concert in North Carolina whilst continuing ahead with the rest of his concert, meaning he's requiring his fans that bought tickets there to go through the hassle of getting a refund. IE treating them differently than all his other concerts . The ONLY question is do you feel that's fair? Now, obviously being a moron you are going to say that is far whereas a baker refusing to back a wedding cake for a gay is not fair; but I can't control how stupid you are.

 

[kaz]

He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.

It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Not a single gay can't buy whatever cake they want or get whatever photographs of their queer wedding they want

 

[kaz]

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

That's the entire point. The PA laws are NOT consistent. They allow certain discrimination, meaning of course that some get more protection than others, and they are wholly unenforcable.

Let's take a person like SeaWytch, for example. Does ANYONE doubt that she would sue and claim she was discriminate against solely based on being gay regardless of any real reason if she was refused service by a company? Of course she would sue, and we all know that the onus would THEN be on the business to prove that they discriminated for another reason, a legal reason. In other words, that company would be guilty until they prove they were innocent. In effect, you can't refuse service to a gay person for ANY reason for a rightful fear of losing your business.

You know that do you?

Shows what you "know"

You post it every day on message boards. Geez, you right wingers don't get anything.

You also never get tired of being an eight year old

Oh, so anything I perceive from your posts must be true because you post here everyday? Good to know.

The irony of you calling anyone an eight year old as you throw a tantrum and demand Springsteen pay a fine for "discrimination"...but you can't say who was discriminated against.

It is to laugh.

Wow, did I hit a nerve. Calm down, geez. It's only an internet message board. Try to breathe deeply, use a bag if you need to. You Republicans get so upset

 

[kaz]

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Imo, the Boss did basically the same thing as a non-baking baker.

So the baker can close shop and open up again when the fag leaves? I don't think that's true

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Hey StupidWytch.

Let's suppose I owned an online retailer, now let's suppose you ordered an paid for a wedding gift from my site, now let's suppose I sent you an email that said "I'm sorry, but due to your state's laws concerning gay marriage I have decided not to do business there anymore. Feel free to request a refund"

Would you have cause to sue me for discriminating?

 

[Seawytch]

I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.

It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Not a single gay can't buy whatever cake they want or get whatever photographs of their queer wedding they want

Nice try, Kaz but you know you're wrong when it comes to the law. Nobody has been denied access to a Bruce Springsteen concert. They weren't told to go see another performer. Anyone can still go see Bruce...in a state other than NC.

The proper analogy (and you know it) is the baker baking the wedding cake regardless of WHO the customer is or they stop making wedding cakes.

 

[bendog]

I'm not a fan of PA acts, but the fact is that unless there is a PA act in a city, there's no reason for a state to have a law allowing discrimination. That said, if a baker has a legal option to not bake, the Boss has a legal option as to whom he entertains.

It is enjoyable to watch NC take an economic hit, and they are taking one. I'm glad my kid no longer goes to summer camp up there. It's beautiful up towards Ashville.

btw, it really doesn't add anything persuasive when you call a person a n8gger or dirty Mexican or fag.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey StupidWytch.

Let's suppose I owned an online retailer, now let's suppose you ordered an paid for a wedding gift from my site, now let's suppose I sent you an email that said "I'm sorry, but due to your state's laws concerning gay marriage I have decided not to do business there anymore. Feel free to request a refund"

Would you have cause to sue me for discriminating?

All states have the same law on gay marriage.

 

[bendog]

Hey StupidWytch.

Let's suppose I owned an online retailer, now let's suppose you ordered an paid for a wedding gift from my site, now let's suppose I sent you an email that said "I'm sorry, but due to your state's laws concerning gay marriage I have decided not to do business there anymore. Feel free to request a refund"

Would you have cause to sue me for discriminating?

All states have the same law on gay marriage.

Just so. And now we'll get to see if Miss's religious accomodations act runs afoul of that. Pass the popcorn.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Hey StupidWytch.

Let's suppose I owned an online retailer, now let's suppose you ordered an paid for a wedding gift from my site, now let's suppose I sent you an email that said "I'm sorry, but due to your state's laws concerning gay marriage I have decided not to do business there anymore. Feel free to request a refund"

Would you have cause to sue me for discriminating?

All states have the same law on gay marriage.

Evading is a wise choice, as you are getting your ass kicked in this thread.

 

[kaz]

The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?

That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.

And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent

You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.

Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.

Here is how stupid partisan hacks are.

It is OBVIOUS that he is discriminating. He's discriminating against a state that chooses to pass a law that he doesn't like.

That's all well and good an I support his right to do so, but then an idiot like SeaWytch comes along and realizes that she can't admit that businesses (and E street band most certainly IS a business) without also admitting that any law which prohibits discrimination against certain groups is illegal.

In short SeaWytch, you are stupid and pathetic.

A state cannot be discriminated against. The people from the state can be, but not a single NC resident is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.

If a baker lives in Anytown USA and Anytown decides to pass a non discrimination ordinance that protects gays from discrimination in Public Accommodation, the baker has two choices...they bake the cakes or they close shop. Bruce closed shop.

Not a single queer was being deprived a cake or photographer at their wedding

Not a single gay can't buy whatever cake they want or get whatever photographs of their queer wedding they want

Nice try, Kaz but you know you're wrong when it comes to the law. Nobody has been denied access to a Bruce Springsteen concert. They weren't told to go see another performer. Anyone can still go see Bruce...in a state other than NC.

The proper analogy (and you know it) is the baker baking the wedding cake regardless of WHO the customer is or they stop making wedding cakes.

Not a single queer was being deprived a cake or photographer at their wedding

 

[ChrisL]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

A musician is not a "public accommodation" business. Lol.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you wouldn't.

Accepting welfare is an option just like accepting a job that has drug tests. If you don't want to get drug tested, then don't apply for welfare.

oh, I see. what task is a welfare person going to do that might be impaired by his taking drugs? Because that's the legal rational behind drug testing job applicants.

Sounds more like the Mafia than organized government.

If you don't want your business burned down, you better do as we say.

Well, uh, no. You see, the thing is, you guys want no law to apply to you but you want laws to apply to people who might use violence to retaliate against you bigots.

And while you might relish the thought of wanting to sit outside a bakery all night waiting for some queer to show up with a lighter so you can shoot him, real world, most people want government protection.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want the benefits of a civilized society or you don't. Because as much as you talk smack about 'freedom' and 'liberty', you want the bad old government keeping those people in line. You just don't want them keeping YOU in line.

No, government is obligated to me as a tax payer to provide laws and protection against violence. That's besides the fact I have no choice since I can't make my own laws in which to protect myself or business.

Drug testing at work does not test to see if you are intoxicated at the time. Drug testing tests if you take narcotics period whether it be on your vacation when you are nowhere near work or the morning of work. It doesn't matter. Recreational narcotics may impair your ability to work just like it may impair your ability to find a job or make responsible decisions.

An employer may feel he doesn't need to provide you with a job so you can get tanked every night just as I as a taxpayer feel I don't need to support you so you can get tanked every night.

 

[ChrisL]

No, you wouldn't.

Accepting welfare is an option just like accepting a job that has drug tests. If you don't want to get drug tested, then don't apply for welfare.

oh, I see. what task is a welfare person going to do that might be impaired by his taking drugs? Because that's the legal rational behind drug testing job applicants.

Sounds more like the Mafia than organized government.

If you don't want your business burned down, you better do as we say.

Well, uh, no. You see, the thing is, you guys want no law to apply to you but you want laws to apply to people who might use violence to retaliate against you bigots.

And while you might relish the thought of wanting to sit outside a bakery all night waiting for some queer to show up with a lighter so you can shoot him, real world, most people want government protection.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want the benefits of a civilized society or you don't. Because as much as you talk smack about 'freedom' and 'liberty', you want the bad old government keeping those people in line. You just don't want them keeping YOU in line.

No, government is obligated to me as a tax payer to provide laws and protection against violence. That's besides the fact I have no choice since I can't make my own laws in which to protect myself or business.

Drug testing at work does not test to see if you are intoxicated at the time. Drug testing tests if you take narcotics period whether it be on your vacation when you are nowhere near work or the morning of work. It doesn't matter. Recreational narcotics may impair your ability to work just like it may impair your ability to find a job or make responsible decisions.

An employer may feel he doesn't need to provide you with a job so you can get tanked every night just as I as a taxpayer feel I don't need to support you so you can get tanked every night.

Um, no it doesn't. Most drugs can be out of your system within 24-48 hours, so the only "drugs" they usually pick up are marijuana because THC sticks to fat cells and takes much longer to be purged from the body.

 

[ChrisL]

The typical urine drug test is not going to pick up on hard drugs. The only test that would pick up on that would be hair sample testing, and that is very expensive and very RARELY used.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The typical urine drug test is not going to pick up on hard drugs. The only test that would pick up on that would be hair sample testing, and that is very expensive and very RARELY used.

It picks up more than you think. In fact, one of our drivers got busted for pot. He knew that he could be drug tested at any time, so he bought some stuff that guaranteed the passage of a drug test. You mix it with a lot of water and you supposedly will pass the test.

Well, he didn't pass the test because the test also detects these agents some people try to use to cover up narcotics usage.

When you go for these tests, you are asked a series of questions. One of them is for any prescription drugs you have taken. One time when I went, I told the nurse that my dentist had me on pain medication, but I haven't taken a pill in over a week. Two weeks later (I'm assuming when they got the results back) they did contact my dentist to confirm the medication I took and what dosage.