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.
Screw the law. It's MY business and I'll hire who I want to represent MY business. See I don't buy that bs obama's spoon feeding the ignorant. I built my business myself, and I will choose who I hire to represent it and me, and that would not include felons, dopers, drunks, homosexuals, negroes or heathens. Won't hire long haired, ear ring wearing hipsters or blatant liberals either.
Best of luck, bigot. Hope you can afford the lawsuits should your illegal hiring practices be found out.
I would think you have enough to worry about in your own life than someone running a small buisness running it the way they want to.
Thats the problem with most progressives, they are shameless busybodies.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
Was he (Obama) a bigot 14 months ago? Reed asked Maddow regarding Obamas previous views, implying how difficult it would be for her to characterize other Democratic DOMA supporters such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid as intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
RALPH REED: this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that theyre ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
RACHEL MADDOW: Theyve all changed their mind on it. All of them.
RALPH REED: But Obama was 14 months ago. Was he a bigot 14 months ago?
RACHEL MADDOW: Nobodys calling anybody a bigot.
Was Obama a ?Bigot 14 Months Ago??: Ralph Reed Confronts Rachel Maddow, Rips Liberal Hypocrisy Over Who Is Labeled Anti-Gay | Video | TheBlaze.com
Screw the law. It's MY business and I'll hire who I want to represent MY business. See I don't buy that bs obama's spoon feeding the ignorant. I built my business myself, and I will choose who I hire to represent it and me, and that would not include felons, dopers, drunks, homosexuals, negroes or heathens. Won't hire long haired, ear ring wearing hipsters or blatant liberals either.
Best of luck, bigot. Hope you can afford the lawsuits should your illegal hiring practices be found out.
I would think you have enough to worry about in your own life than someone running a small buisness running it the way they want to.
Thats the problem with most progressives, they are shameless busybodies.
A state deciding to change its marriage laws via legislative action is not even remotely unconsitutional. What I dont see is a consitutional RIGHT to gay marriage. The consitution is silent with regards to marriage contracts in general.
Perhaps, but that's not up for you or me to decide; that's the job of the Supreme Court justices.
When it comes to private anti-discrimination laws what I dont see is the counsitution giving that power over contracts (which is what an employment agreement or an agreement so sell a good or service esentially is, a contract) to the feds. States may retain it, but in general I see anti-discrimination laws targeted at private businesses as governmental overreach.
Again, perhaps and I'm sure you could build a compelling case on this that would deserve some attention. Just note that I don't mind this specific overreach and would likely not join in the fight. You might find some difficulty gaining momentum to overturn this particular precedent.
New rights should not be decided by a 5/9 majority of unelected job for life lawyers.
New rights are for the amendment process if we think they are important enough. Rights flow from the people, not from the bench.
In this case, the DCFS was so concerned about these nuts they pulled the kids out of the home.
You Libs can justify anything
Even facism.
You Libs can justify anything
Even facism.
Thanks Roo, very descriptive and insightful.
No. They should be able to refuse service to whom ever they want for what ever reason.
Actually that is the way it should be for any business for any reason.
It isn't and you've got a lot of laws to repeal before you can. Better get to work.
Whites only lunch counters, hooray!!! Fucking crips, drag your ass up the stairs and I don't care if you are in a wheel chair.
Actually that is the way it should be for any business for any reason.
It isn't and you've got a lot of laws to repeal before you can. Better get to work.
Whites only lunch counters, hooray!!! Fucking crips, drag your ass up the stairs and I don't care if you are in a wheel chair.
Again Government getting involved in small business, never a good idea.
If the small businessman wants to stay in business he will adapt to market.
It isn't and you've got a lot of laws to repeal before you can. Better get to work.
Whites only lunch counters, hooray!!! Fucking crips, drag your ass up the stairs and I don't care if you are in a wheel chair.
Again Government getting involved in small business, never a good idea.
If the small businessman wants to stay in business he will adapt to market.
"Never a good idea"? What about when the government gets involved to investigate fraud that has hurt the business, or when the government enacts laws that make it illegal for a vendor not to pay the small business back for work?
You Libs can justify anything
Even facism.
Thanks Roo, very descriptive and insightful.
It is spot on.
The Left has no problem trying to force EVERYONE to think the same way they do.
Its just a fact of life.
a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control J. W. Aldridge>
Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Living in the bubble still!
Thanks Roo, very descriptive and insightful.
It is spot on.
The Left has no problem trying to force EVERYONE to think the same way they do.
Its just a fact of life.
a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control J. W. Aldridge>
Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The Ends justify the means. You are completely and utterly morally bankrupt, and that has nothing to do with who you are currently buggering.
Wait a minute....let me get this (pardon the pun) straight. I'm morally bankrupt for voting for the guy that still wanted to give me equal rights even though he used to be personally opposed to gay marriage?
Yeah, go with that.
No, you voted for the guy who lied to get his socially conservative black voters to come out in greater numbers, only to reverse course when he can't get re-elected, under the assumption that said black voters are in the bag, and won't really vote against democrats.
But just wait until some of thier buisnesses get sued for not participating in Gay cerimonies.
The backlash is a comin.
[
Were you born this stupid or do you work at it? The whole topic is business owners, like bakers who make wedding cakes, hall owners who rent reception halls, photographers that take wedding pictures, wedding planners, and the 101 other businesses that specialize in wedding related goods and services being forced by law to include offering these goods and services to sodomites and dykes who get legally married in jurisdictions that have gay "marriage" or get sued for discriminating against them. This has ALREADY happened dumbass, If you are telling bakers they have to bake a wedding cake for two sodomites that are getting married or they get sued, or if you tell a wedding planner that if they turn down two faggots or dykes just because they are faggots or dykes and you don't believe in gay marriage that they can be sued, or if you tell a person that rents out halls for wedding receptions that if they refuse to rent the hall to deviants who wish to celebrate their reception at your hall only because he believes gay marriage is immoral and against his religious beliefs he can be sued, you are forcing them to participate in a gay marriage/wedding. Damn you're an idiot.
If they don't approve of certain kinds of weddings, they shouldn't be in that kind of business.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I would look at it this way. You guys would make horrible businessmen the way you are always on about business.
their money is just as green as the straights, that's the way I look at it.
Perhaps, but that's not up for you or me to decide; that's the job of the Supreme Court justices.
Again, perhaps and I'm sure you could build a compelling case on this that would deserve some attention. Just note that I don't mind this specific overreach and would likely not join in the fight. You might find some difficulty gaining momentum to overturn this particular precedent.
New rights should not be decided by a 5/9 majority of unelected job for life lawyers.
New rights are for the amendment process if we think they are important enough. Rights flow from the people, not from the bench.
"new rights"?
The Ends justify the means. You are completely and utterly morally bankrupt, and that has nothing to do with who you are currently buggering.
Wait a minute....let me get this (pardon the pun) straight. I'm morally bankrupt for voting for the guy that still wanted to give me equal rights even though he used to be personally opposed to gay marriage?
Yeah, go with that.
No, you're morally bankrupt because you're a perverse sexual deviant and a liberal.
[
Were you born this stupid or do you work at it? The whole topic is business owners, like bakers who make wedding cakes, hall owners who rent reception halls, photographers that take wedding pictures, wedding planners, and the 101 other businesses that specialize in wedding related goods and services being forced by law to include offering these goods and services to sodomites and dykes who get legally married in jurisdictions that have gay "marriage" or get sued for discriminating against them. This has ALREADY happened dumbass, If you are telling bakers they have to bake a wedding cake for two sodomites that are getting married or they get sued, or if you tell a wedding planner that if they turn down two faggots or dykes just because they are faggots or dykes and you don't believe in gay marriage that they can be sued, or if you tell a person that rents out halls for wedding receptions that if they refuse to rent the hall to deviants who wish to celebrate their reception at your hall only because he believes gay marriage is immoral and against his religious beliefs he can be sued, you are forcing them to participate in a gay marriage/wedding. Damn you're an idiot.
If they don't approve of certain kinds of weddings, they shouldn't be in that kind of business.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I would look at it this way. You guys would make horrible businessmen the way you are always on about business.
their money is just as green as the straights, that's the way I look at it.
Coors and Chik-fil-A found that out, didn't they?
Wait a minute....let me get this (pardon the pun) straight. I'm morally bankrupt for voting for the guy that still wanted to give me equal rights even though he used to be personally opposed to gay marriage?
Yeah, go with that.
No, you voted for the guy who lied to get his socially conservative black voters to come out in greater numbers, only to reverse course when he can't get re-elected, under the assumption that said black voters are in the bag, and won't really vote against democrats.
But just wait until some of thier buisnesses get sued for not participating in Gay cerimonies.
The backlash is a comin.
Oh...so they DIDN'T just vote for him because he was black......funny, that goes against what some RWrs have been telling us all along.
Wait a minute....let me get this (pardon the pun) straight. I'm morally bankrupt for voting for the guy that still wanted to give me equal rights even though he used to be personally opposed to gay marriage?
Yeah, go with that.
No, you voted for the guy who lied to get his socially conservative black voters to come out in greater numbers, only to reverse course when he can't get re-elected, under the assumption that said black voters are in the bag, and won't really vote against democrats.
But just wait until some of thier buisnesses get sued for not participating in Gay cerimonies.
The backlash is a comin.
Oh...so they DIDN'T just vote for him because he was black......funny, that goes against what some RWrs have been telling us all along.
