What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?

[Juicin]

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

People who believe in abortion, and that gay is genetic, give very little thought to the fact that both abortion and choosing a gay lifestyle cause big problems for these people. Abortion causes many mental health issues such as self destructive behavior, as well as depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and guilt just to mention a few.

A homosexual lifestyle leads to shockingly high suicide rates as well as many health risks.

A kind and considerate person would not ignore these facts.

being gay for men is genetic

very clearly runs in families

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

That's because your business has under 50 employees and you are exempt from most discrimination laws.

I fired a black woman the same day I fired two white women and a white guy.

The black woman ran to government and said ... it's racism. It's sexism. kaz doesn't like me.

While the government didn't really agree with her and they conceded that the demographics for the people I fired were not out of line with my company overall, they wouldn't let the fucking thing go. Getting them to end it is endless. That's how they operate.

Something is wrong with your story if you really own all that and you don't know what government does to small business owners. Even the Democrats I know who are business owners are disgusted

I am not exempt from equal housing laws and those are a hell of a lot more strict than pubic access laws

And I have never been negatively affected by those laws and I don't think you have either

Well of course not, we have kind, loving government that just wants to help and make life fair passing laws and pointing guns to make sure we all follow their will. Total liberty that

 

[jehanne1431]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don’t think it matters to many people at all, but I believe the opposition in this country is coming primarily from devout Christians, especially Catholics. A pope I am not too crazy about, Francis, when asked about homosexuality responded with “Who am I to judge?” On that score, I thought his answer was terrific. Because if gay sex is a sin, so are a thousand other acts which could be more egregious, and so why single one out so vociferously. Plus it is a sin unto ourselves to judge what sentence another person deserves for their sin. The Catholic Church makes clear God alone is the judge, and consequently the Church never said any one particular individual is in hell or deserving of hell.

Having said all that, the real opposition coming from Christians I believe is the promotion of homosexuality in schools along with a number of other sexual “perversions” if I may use the term. The Church is in the business of saving souls, first and foremost, undoubtedly. We believe if you tell children gay is ok, you can choose your gender, here is how your protect yourself when having intercourse long before marriage, abortion is not evil, et al. this is not only approving sinful measures, but encouraging them. This is totally not cool with the teachings of our Lord, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And these are moral issues the govt takes too many liberties with. (imo) This nation is now morally adrift.

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws

Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws

No one is exempt from civil rights laws either.

 

[initforme]

Nobody on this thread yet has provided a reason for me to be angry and threatened by gays. Epic fail. And I'm a lifelong practicing Christian who stands firm in those beliefs.

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws

Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them

I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

No, that's you Grand Dragon. I want you to be able to freely discriminate instead of doing it in secret with diversions like you do now. It's not because he's black, it's because his pants don't fit, totally legit, right, racist?

I want you to be free to discriminate in the open, more customers for me.

It's about liberty, ass wipe. But racists like you boil everything down to skin color

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

No, that's you Grand Dragon. I want you to be able to freely discriminate instead of doing it in secret with diversions like you do now. It's not because he's black, it's because his pants don't fit, totally legit, right, racist?

I want you to be free to discriminate in the open, more customers for me.

It's about liberty, ass wipe. But racists like you boil everything down to skin color

I don't discriminate at all as I have already told you.

Anyone who can prove to me that they can pay the rent first last and security deposit will be accepted. If they violate their lease I will evict them.

So tell me who are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to freely discriminate against?

 

[initforme]

It's hard to imagine there are people out there that want to discriminate. What are these beliefs based on?

 

[Blues Man]

It's hard to imagine there are people out there that want to discriminate. What are these beliefs based on?

Ignorance

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

No, that's you Grand Dragon. I want you to be able to freely discriminate instead of doing it in secret with diversions like you do now. It's not because he's black, it's because his pants don't fit, totally legit, right, racist?

I want you to be free to discriminate in the open, more customers for me.

It's about liberty, ass wipe. But racists like you boil everything down to skin color

I don't discriminate at all as I have already told you.

Anyone who can prove to me that they can pay the rent first last and security deposit will be accepted. If they violate their lease I will evict them.

So tell me who are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to freely discriminate against?

Irrelevant question because that's not the topic of the discussion. Racists always bring every subject back to racism, you're obsessed with it

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

No, that's you Grand Dragon. I want you to be able to freely discriminate instead of doing it in secret with diversions like you do now. It's not because he's black, it's because his pants don't fit, totally legit, right, racist?

I want you to be free to discriminate in the open, more customers for me.

It's about liberty, ass wipe. But racists like you boil everything down to skin color

I don't discriminate at all as I have already told you.

Anyone who can prove to me that they can pay the rent first last and security deposit will be accepted. If they violate their lease I will evict them.

So tell me who are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to freely discriminate against?

Irrelevant question because that's not the topic of the discussion. Racists always bring every subject back to racism, you're obsessed with it

Of course it's relevant.

YOU said you want to be able to freely discriminate against people so which people?

Is it the faggots because that's the topic of the thread?

And I wonder what the real reason is you won't answer.

 

[DukeU]

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

People who believe in abortion, and that gay is genetic, give very little thought to the fact that both abortion and choosing a gay lifestyle cause big problems for these people. Abortion causes many mental health issues such as self destructive behavior, as well as depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and guilt just to mention a few.

A homosexual lifestyle leads to shockingly high suicide rates as well as many health risks.

A kind and considerate person would not ignore these facts.

being gay for men is genetic

very clearly runs in families

Some families are disfunctional like that. LOL

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

Something bad happened.

Blues Man: OMG, we need government to fix it!

Talk about naïve.

There is no problem so large or so complicated that government cannot make it worse.

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution say your due process rights are forfeit when money changes hands?

What good have you ever seen of government's power to point guns at you and force you to do business with other citizens?

Cut it out with the fucking histrionics already.

No one is holding a fucking gun to your pointy head.

Of course they are. You're seriously saying it's optional? I don't have to do what government is commanding me to do?

I call bull shit to that. Try it. Ignore them and you'll see the guns.

And again, where does the Constitution say my due process rights to violate my life, liberty and property are void when money changes hands?

No one is holding a gun to your head.

So tell me just who are you being forced to do business with that you wouldn't anyway?

Is t the NI$%ERS?

The Faggots?

The Kikes?

The Gooks?

No, that's you Grand Dragon. I want you to be able to freely discriminate instead of doing it in secret with diversions like you do now. It's not because he's black, it's because his pants don't fit, totally legit, right, racist?

I want you to be free to discriminate in the open, more customers for me.

It's about liberty, ass wipe. But racists like you boil everything down to skin color

I don't discriminate at all as I have already told you.

Anyone who can prove to me that they can pay the rent first last and security deposit will be accepted. If they violate their lease I will evict them.

So tell me who are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to freely discriminate against?

Irrelevant question because that's not the topic of the discussion. Racists always bring every subject back to racism, you're obsessed with it