Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[rightwinger]

Someone wants to buy a cake, and they want government to force them to sell it to them. Of course that's "running to the government." Do you not grasp the English language?

By admitting it's a "new" minority he's admitting it is a political determination, not ethnic, gender or religious. Therefore, NOT covered under the Constitution. And no, they feel things more than they can read or comprehend things.

The ******* were covered by the Constitution alright, they were 3/5ths persons.

Those in the South wanted them counted as a full person for Congressional apportionment. Even though they were legally property and had no vote

 

[Flopper]

Under Jim Crow, the law compelled businesses to discriminate, so your conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Jim Crow laws were passed precisely because businesses refused to discriminate against blacks and the racists couldn't allow that. History proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.

There was no law needed to compel businesses to discriminate in the South. Jim Crow laws were passed to protect businesses from outside pressures to integrate during reconstruction and into the 20th century. White businesses had no desire to integrate. Jim Crow laws, which they supported provide them with the legal mandate needed to keep their business segregated.

Talk about pulled out of your ass. They passed laws to make businesses do what they were doing anyway. Sure they did, suuuurrrreee they did. And no links. And if that is true, then the businesses would have integrated as quickly as they did when the law was changed.

It's well known the bus company was against the sit in the back rule because blacks were most of their customers. You obviously wouldn't know this, but running a business and making every payroll is one of the most difficult things anyone can do in life. There is no greater driver for equality to take any paying customer who walks through the door.

I'm sure there were some white business owners who didn't want black customers, but most of them were more afraid of the nut jobs who threatened them and got the laws passed. In the end, Jim Crow was unambiguously the power of government guns, not free markets. The bigots in the South were just like liberals on the national stage today, driven by anger, hate and intolerance for anyone different than you are. And like the bigots in the south, you will destroy anyone in your way.

Bus companies in the South had no reason to integrate before the boycotts in the 50's and 60's. They certainly weren't going to lose their black riders because most blacks, unlike whites had no other means of transportation. In my home town, if the bus company had willingly integrated, they would lost most their white riders. Even when they were forced to integrate very few whites would ride the buses.

In the Old South, if a white business served blacks, whites would go elsewhere. White people had the money and that's who white businesses served. Businesses simple could not afford to integrate. They followed the money and the money was not serving poor blacks at the expense of losing white business. Segregation in the South was simply a way of life which local and state government supported.

The pressure to integrate the South did not come from businesses and certainly not from the general public, but rather educated and well to do blacks who were denied entrance to the best restaurants, hotels, stores, housing, and schools.

Southern states after reconstruction feared a retaliation by blacks as well as the application of 14th and 15th amendment in the South to give blacks more control of government. Jim Crow laws were a response to those fears.


GIC | Article

 

[kaz]

Bus companies in the South had no reason to integrate before the boycotts in the 50's and 60's. They certainly weren't going to lose their black riders because most blacks, unlike whites had no other means of transportation. In my home town, if the bus company had willingly integrated, they would lost most their white riders. Even when they were forced to integrate very few whites would ride the buses.

OMG, you are ignorant and apparently willfully so. I already told you to do some reading and educate yourself because you don't know what you're talking about, and you not only declined but repeated your ignorance.

Montgomery Bus Boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

GIC | Article

Once again. Jim Crow ... laws ...

Government was the discriminator, yet again you use that to advocate government power over private enterprise. Businesses were victimized just like blacks were. This is all on your beloved government.

 

[kaz]

By admitting it's a "new" minority he's admitting it is a political determination, not ethnic, gender or religious. Therefore, NOT covered under the Constitution. And no, they feel things more than they can read or comprehend things.

The ******* were covered by the Constitution alright, they were 3/5ths persons.

Those in the South wanted them counted as a full person for Congressional apportionment. Even though they were legally property and had no vote

Only government could make them legal property and government gave them no vote. Yet another simpleton using government abusing power to justify government power.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The ******* were covered by the Constitution alright, they were 3/5ths persons.

Those in the South wanted them counted as a full person for Congressional apportionment. Even though they were legally property and had no vote

Only government could make them legal property and government gave them no vote. Yet another simpleton using government abusing power to justify government power.

Just out of curiosity, when exactly, if ever, was the government what you believe it should be? The right size, the right scope, the right influence, etc.?

 

[Flopper]

What if you found out today that instead of being a race of people, LGBT are instead an incomplete grouping of deviant sexual behaviors, learned along the way, and not bound in any way by genetic factors?

Some people think that this means little. But in the legal arena, it means EVERYTHING. The difference is the difference between their winning and losing based on milking the 14th Amendment. It's this amendment that all these judges are looking to to grant them special protections. However, behaviors don't qualify.

What if instead of raging against the LGBT propaganda, strawman and diversion machines on the internet, you just started talking instead about how they resemble a cult? How they are behavioral? How behaviors are regulated [discriminated against] every day in the American penal and civil law system?

Perhaps you might be interested to know that the idea of their being found out legally-speaking as a cult or behaviors shakes them to their very foundation.

For a start on your quest to change the momentum around, you can start at the link below and read the digestion of over 300 peer-reviewed research papers demonstrating that sexual orientation is learned and can be passed on socially. The ramifications of that are HUGE when considering mainstreaming LGBT cult values. It means that not only are they just a particularly aggressive and weird group of deviant sexual behavioralists, but that if they succeed in mainstreaming their value system [see their messiah Harvey Milk's biography], it can be "passed on" by the aping factor to subsequent generations. This has the potential to make America look like Ancient Greece in a generation or two after their success.

If this bothers you, turn the momentum around. Start talking about LGBT as behaviors, exclusively.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

At one time, the future of Gay Marriage in the US seemed to rest solely on whether existing laws and constitutional amendment that prohibit same sex marriage are constitutional. Most of the laws and constitutional amendments were passed when most people were against same sex marriage.

Over the last decade support for same sex marriage has grown steadily to a point where most people support it. And if trends mean anything, it seems likely that support will continue to increase. Support has grown among religious groups who were among the most strongest supporters of bans on gay marriage. Young people are the strongest supporters of gay marriage and older people are strongest supporters of banning gay marriage.

Regardless of what courts rule as to constitutionality of bans on gay marriage, the acceptance of gay marriage will continue to increase. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court will only speed up the process.

 

[kaz]

Those in the South wanted them counted as a full person for Congressional apportionment. Even though they were legally property and had no vote

Only government could make them legal property and government gave them no vote. Yet another simpleton using government abusing power to justify government power.

Just out of curiosity, when exactly, if ever, was the government what you believe it should be? The right size, the right scope, the right influence, etc.?

Well, we haven't had your socialist utopia either since you keep asking for more. I don't get what your point is, I should not advocate what I believe why exactly?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Only government could make them legal property and government gave them no vote. Yet another simpleton using government abusing power to justify government power.

Just out of curiosity, when exactly, if ever, was the government what you believe it should be? The right size, the right scope, the right influence, etc.?

Well, we haven't had your socialist utopia either since you keep asking for more. I don't get what your point is, I should not advocate what I believe why exactly?

I'm asking you. Tell us what the right government is and whether we've ever had such a thing?

 

[emilynghiem]

No, we should set up free mediation and referral services to protect businesses
until this backlash is sorted out.

Nobody should ever resort to REVENGE as that makes the backlash worse.
It is against Christian beliefs to wish ill much less carry it out against one's neighbors.

We should set up a network of free donations of goods and services, in keeping with Christian principles. If people cannot do business, they can offer free charity and volunteer donated goods and services from others, so there is no complaint, no ill will, no lawsuits.

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

 

[kaz]

Just out of curiosity, when exactly, if ever, was the government what you believe it should be? The right size, the right scope, the right influence, etc.?

Well, we haven't had your socialist utopia either since you keep asking for more. I don't get what your point is, I should not advocate what I believe why exactly?

I'm asking you. Tell us what the right government is and whether we've ever had such a thing?

We haven't had my libertarian ideal, the closest would be when this country was founded. We haven't had your socialist utopia, no one has come close.

So you're farther from home than I am, Homey. If you want more, you have to give me some relevance to this.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, we haven't had your socialist utopia either since you keep asking for more. I don't get what your point is, I should not advocate what I believe why exactly?

I'm asking you. Tell us what the right government is and whether we've ever had such a thing?

We haven't had my libertarian ideal, the closest would be when this country was founded. We haven't had your socialist utopia, no one has come close.

So you're farther from home than I am, Homey. If you want more, you have to give me some relevance to this.

So we've never had it, meaning you aren't dealing with reality, it's just what you would like.

As for my Utopia, there is no such thing but there is a better functioning version of America than the one we have currently. Until we do, I deal with what we have and try to make the best of it. You should do the same. It would make your arguments rational instead of ideological.

 

[candycorn]

First of all, you just called me an "idiot" for agreeing with you....

No, I called you an idiot for not recognizing the limitations.


Yeah, people always just show up and buy wedding, quince, graduation etc... cakes with no notice. Dumbass.

Now, as far as your second absurd apples-to-oranges comparison regarding the physician, it's essentially the same situation as the public defender. As part of their board certification, they knowingly and freely enter into an agreement requiring them to treat anyone in need. They do not have to enter into that agreement, therefore they have no legal grounds for which to deny service.

Ahh...and I bet it burns you up that if you were a physician, you may have to provide aid to a liberal....

Just another reason liberalism is, was, and always will be superior to conservatism. You're living proof.

Liberalism is by far inferior to conservatism.

Ignorance follows around conservatives like a classic ball and chain.

The gun debate is all you need to know about what the winning mentality is. The solution according to the gun nuts is that we need more guns and we'll be safer. The US society already has more guns than all other societies (held by it's citizenry) and we have, by far the most gun deaths. The "reasoning" (I use the term in it's broadest possible context) is that our society is different. Somehow, the same books, movies, news stories, television programs, languages, and yes video games are played in those same societies and they suffer no where near as many gun deaths as we do. The only difference is that an idiot in Wheeling West Virginia sees a movie, reads a book (or likely has a liberal read it to him), or plays a game where the character shoots someone and can go to the store and buy the same gun and think the movie, book, or game accurately describes what happens next. An idiot in Wellington, New Zealand reads the same book, sees the same movie, or plays the same game and cannot fathom getting that weaponry to see what happens next. It is the only difference.

Most libtards on this board have no clue to what it means to be American,

I'm always happy to hear what others think it means to be an American. Please amuse us with your prose.

they hold to socialist values,

Yawn...

the very thing the founders came here to avoid.

In the late 1700s. Okay...

Don't try to twist history with me, I know exactly what the agenda of the idiotic left is.

Sure you do...no fuckstick....you only know what you've been told and let me guess, you are frightened by it and know who is to blame...right? In short, you've been programmed. What a good little robot you are. Now be a good android and run along.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see Spanky. So your whining for the bar to be lowered and endless bitching about how people have to pay their own bills isn't for you, it's for other people. Obviously that's not true since even you know you can give to charity without it being being taken from you by force. You're in it to have it taken from other people by force.

You know how people can move on? If someone doesn't want to serve them, they can go to any of the plethora of businesses that do want their money. The idea that running to government to use force to make someone do business with you is getting on with things is retarded.

What's retarded is that post. Nuff said.

And no one is running to the government. The principle was established long ago. It's simply being enforced now for a new minority.

Someone wants to buy a cake, and they want government to force them to sell it to them. Of course that's "running to the government." Do you not grasp the English language?

At what point in your vision of the world does any discrimination need to be deemed illegal by the government?

 

[kaz]

I'm asking you. Tell us what the right government is and whether we've ever had such a thing?

We haven't had my libertarian ideal, the closest would be when this country was founded. We haven't had your socialist utopia, no one has come close.

So you're farther from home than I am, Homey. If you want more, you have to give me some relevance to this.

So we've never had it, meaning you aren't dealing with reality, it's just what you would like.

As for my Utopia, there is no such thing but there is a better functioning version of America than the one we have currently. Until we do, I deal with what we have and try to make the best of it. You should do the same. It would make your arguments rational instead of ideological.

We've never had your socialist utopia either, so you aren't dealing with reality. Knock it off and pay your own bills.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We haven't had my libertarian ideal, the closest would be when this country was founded. We haven't had your socialist utopia, no one has come close.

So you're farther from home than I am, Homey. If you want more, you have to give me some relevance to this.

So we've never had it, meaning you aren't dealing with reality, it's just what you would like.

As for my Utopia, there is no such thing but there is a better functioning version of America than the one we have currently. Until we do, I deal with what we have and try to make the best of it. You should do the same. It would make your arguments rational instead of ideological.

We've never had your socialist utopia either, so you aren't dealing with reality. Knock it off and pay your own bills.

I do, and my share of those for others. And there is no utopia, just dreams and reality.

 

[kaz]

So we've never had it, meaning you aren't dealing with reality, it's just what you would like.

As for my Utopia, there is no such thing but there is a better functioning version of America than the one we have currently. Until we do, I deal with what we have and try to make the best of it. You should do the same. It would make your arguments rational instead of ideological.

We've never had your socialist utopia either, so you aren't dealing with reality. Knock it off and pay your own bills.

I do, and my share of those for others. And there is no utopia, just dreams and reality.

Sure dude, you're on message boards every day begging for money, but you pay your own bills and more. If that were true, you would realize you don't need government to confiscate your money and redistribute it, you can give it on your own. What you can't do is make people give you money, government has to do that. Which is why you are here.

Besides that, your socialist utopia is your dream, it's not reality. So why are you wasting your time on that fantasy? It never happened before, it's not going to happen.

I still can't grasp why gays would even want to give their money to a homophobe when most businesses would gladly take their money and not care who they sleep with.

 

[JoeB131]

What if you found out today that instead of being a race of people, LGBT are instead an incomplete grouping of deviant sexual behaviors, learned along the way, and not bound in any way by genetic factors?

Some people think that this means little. But in the legal arena, it means EVERYTHING. The difference is the difference between their winning and losing based on milking the 14th Amendment. It's this amendment that all these judges are looking to to grant them special protections. However, behaviors don't qualify.

What if instead of raging against the LGBT propaganda, strawman and diversion machines on the internet, you just started talking instead about how they resemble a cult? How they are behavioral? How behaviors are regulated [discriminated against] every day in the American penal and civil law system?

Perhaps you might be interested to know that the idea of their being found out legally-speaking as a cult or behaviors shakes them to their very foundation.

For a start on your quest to change the momentum around, you can start at the link below and read the digestion of over 300 peer-reviewed research papers demonstrating that sexual orientation is learned and can be passed on socially. The ramifications of that are HUGE when considering mainstreaming LGBT cult values. It means that not only are they just a particularly aggressive and weird group of deviant sexual behavioralists, but that if they succeed in mainstreaming their value system [see their messiah Harvey Milk's biography], it can be "passed on" by the aping factor to subsequent generations. This has the potential to make America look like Ancient Greece in a generation or two after their success.

If this bothers you, turn the momentum around. Start talking about LGBT as behaviors, exclusively.
]

Here's the problem with that argument.

And no, it's not trying to pass of 300 piles of toilet paper from Talking Snake U. as real science.

The problem is that the behavior that has you soooo upset?

Straights do it, too!

38% of straight people have tried anal sex.

99% of straight folks have done felatio and cunnilingus.

10% of people have engaged in a "Threesome". (Still on my Bucket List!)

So honestly, it's not really the mechanics that bothers you, it's the emotional intimacy.

 

[bripat9643]

What's retarded is that post. Nuff said.

And no one is running to the government. The principle was established long ago. It's simply being enforced now for a new minority.

Someone wants to buy a cake, and they want government to force them to sell it to them. Of course that's "running to the government." Do you not grasp the English language?

At what point in your vision of the world does any discrimination need to be deemed illegal by the government?

It doesn't, shit for brains. Haven't you been reading this thread? Problems like discrimination are for society to solve, not the government. Choosing who you associate with is a fundamental human right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has been simply emotionally damaged when it comes to sexual matters, I think.

If so, it explains much of Sil's posting.