What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Nosmo King]

The laws are discriminatory because they say that I cannot practice my religion, ethics or values. You said and agreed that damage is discrimination but you don't care when the laws discriminate against the person who follows religion.

No one is stopping you from going to a different provider. You are only having a problem with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint. That isn't tolerance. I don't go to a Muslim and ask them to change their business practices for me.

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

[MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

 

[Chuckt]

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

[MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

Give me a different interpretation of both the Bible and Constitution.
I didn't interpret the Bible. I let the Bible speak for itself. I let the Bible say what it says. I'm sure I can go ask someone who never read it before and they are going to tell me what it means and it isn't going to be any different than what I said.
I have commentaries that will say what I say on the Bible.
It is your refusal to deal with it as being a religious issue.

I would like there to be alternatives but the reason I'm debating this is because I see injustices happening.

 

[PostmodernProph]

What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

the bakery was put out of business......do you pretend that isn't damage?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals.

uh, no.....they said they chose not to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believed that gay marriage was wrong......the gay couple admitted in the law suit that they were frequent customers of the shop and that the manager had sold them baked goods even though he knew they were a gay couple.....obviously it was not their homosexuality that he objected to, but their marriage ceremony......

 

[Nosmo King]

[MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

Give me a different interpretation of both the Bible and Constitution.
I didn't interpret the Bible. I let the Bible speak for itself. I let the Bible say what it says. I'm sure I can go ask someone who never read it before and they are going to tell me what it means and it isn't going to be any different than what I said.
I have commentaries that will say what I say on the Bible.
It is your refusal to deal with it as being a religious issue.

I would like there to be alternatives but the reason I'm debating this is because I see injustices happening.

Injustices? Do you mean the injustices committed by bigoted homophobes who wish to create second class citizens? Are these the same injustices committed by Woolworths when they refused "colored' customers? Are these the same injustices committed by racists who also quoted from the Bible to justify their own bigotry and hate?

Being refused service for immutable characteristics is the injustice. Idiots wrapping themselves in 'Christianity' so that they can be comfortable in their own lack of worldliness is an injustice.

Don't give me "religious beliefs" as an excuse for lack of humanity. Religion, particuarly Christianity is supposed to be inclusive, not divisive. The "religious" angle is hypocrisy, blasphemy and heresy all rolled into a ball only racists, bigots and homophobes find appealing. It is laughable as a defense.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

come on, lets be honest.....you have no intention of sitting back and seeing if their business survives......you want them closed down.....if not killed, stuffed by a taxidermist and mounted on your bedroom wall.....

 

[Chuckt]

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

Give me a different interpretation of both the Bible and Constitution.
I didn't interpret the Bible. I let the Bible speak for itself. I let the Bible say what it says. I'm sure I can go ask someone who never read it before and they are going to tell me what it means and it isn't going to be any different than what I said.
I have commentaries that will say what I say on the Bible.
It is your refusal to deal with it as being a religious issue.

I would like there to be alternatives but the reason I'm debating this is because I see injustices happening.

Injustices? Do you mean the injustices committed by bigoted homophobes who wish to create second class citizens? Are these the same injustices committed by Woolworths when they refused "colored' customers? Are these the same injustices committed by racists who also quoted from the Bible to justify their own bigotry and hate?

Being refused service for immutable characteristics is the injustice. Idiots wrapping themselves in 'Christianity' so that they can be comfortable in their own lack of worldliness is an injustice.

Don't give me "religious beliefs" as an excuse for lack of humanity. Religion, particuarly Christianity is supposed to be inclusive, not divisive. The "religious" angle is hypocrisy, blasphemy and heresy all rolled into a ball only racists, bigots and homophobes find appealing. It is laughable as a defense.

Let me know when you want to discuss from both sides of the issue and when you are ready to listen and not argue.

 

[Nosmo King]

Give me a different interpretation of both the Bible and Constitution.
I didn't interpret the Bible. I let the Bible speak for itself. I let the Bible say what it says. I'm sure I can go ask someone who never read it before and they are going to tell me what it means and it isn't going to be any different than what I said.
I have commentaries that will say what I say on the Bible.
It is your refusal to deal with it as being a religious issue.

I would like there to be alternatives but the reason I'm debating this is because I see injustices happening.

Injustices? Do you mean the injustices committed by bigoted homophobes who wish to create second class citizens? Are these the same injustices committed by Woolworths when they refused "colored' customers? Are these the same injustices committed by racists who also quoted from the Bible to justify their own bigotry and hate?

Being refused service for immutable characteristics is the injustice. Idiots wrapping themselves in 'Christianity' so that they can be comfortable in their own lack of worldliness is an injustice.

Don't give me "religious beliefs" as an excuse for lack of humanity. Religion, particuarly Christianity is supposed to be inclusive, not divisive. The "religious" angle is hypocrisy, blasphemy and heresy all rolled into a ball only racists, bigots and homophobes find appealing. It is laughable as a defense.

Let me know when you want to discuss from both sides of the issue and when you are ready to listen and not argue.

Which Christians have it right? The Amish? Pentecostal snake handlers? Greek Ortodox? Presbyterians? Methodists? United Baptists or Southern Baptists?

In fact, they all subscribe to thebasictenets of the faith.

Which Christians want to cherry pick the Bible and use dogma to justify their hatred? Aren't those the Christians claiming their faith prohibits them from providing THE VERY SAME SERVICES THEY WOULD PROVIDE FOR HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES as the services requested by homosexual couples?

We've see people useBiblical interpretations to justify racism before. How is this 'religious' claim any different?

 

[Nosmo King]

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

come on, lets be honest.....you have no intention of sitting back and seeing if their business survives......you want them closed down.....if not killed, stuffed by a taxidermist and mounted on your bedroom wall.....

I would rather light a candle than mourn them their darkness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What potential damage do you perceive from baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

Let me make it simple for you, this is everything you need to know about the government and force.

• Without force, there would be no government.
• Everything the government does is coercion.
• Force is the only real tool the government has.
• Government=Force.

Any questions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

The laws are discriminatory because they say that I cannot practice my religion, ethics or values. You said and agreed that damage is discrimination but you don't care when the laws discriminate against the person who follows religion.

No one is stopping you from going to a different provider. You are only having a problem with someone who doesn't share your viewpoint. That isn't tolerance. I don't go to a Muslim and ask them to change their business practices for me.

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

Really?

Tell me, exactly, how either of the bills you just mentioned force anyone to not serve gays if they want to.

In fact, explain to me how they actually allow, for an example, a bartender to refuse to serve someone who is gay.

The simple truth here is that, in this discussion, you are the closed minded bigot. Every time I have weighed in on this issue I have brought up very specific examples about what I object to, as has almost everyone else, and you keep acting like we all want to let people starve to death based on their sexual orientation. I do not care who you sleep with, or even where. You can do it on the lawn at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue if you want, and I will even defend your human, and constitutional, right to do so as part of every persons innate right to free speech and self expression.

What I will not let you do is force other people to watch, attend, or participate in, your free speech in any way, shape, or form. That is the utmost evil, and was settled in 1865.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, bull.

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals. But the hated and fear and suspicion and belittle net of homosexuals is not a tenet of the faith. Hiding behind the robes of Christ to spew hatred is hypocritical at best, blasphemous at worst.

We saw other bigots use the same warped interpretations during Jim Crow.

This is not a religious argument. It's just good old fashioned gay bashing, a sport enjoyed by the dim witted for eons.

@Nosmo King

You are making an assumption that is gay bashing instead of a religious argument that one can make. My wife's relative models for a photographer and the pictures are used for gay advertising. We went to the wedding. We understand that it is a difficult issue but don't pretend that we don't think about the implications.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

Ask yourself why it is sinful to wish someone God speed? If you wish someone God speed that doesn't have your own Christian interests in mind, I'm participating in their sinful deeds.

2 John 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

You are saying that we hate and it has nothing to do with right and wrong or doctrine. Really? You don't know anyone at all.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I know mean and ignorant Christians who would say that it would ruin their witness.

What you are calling for is an illegal law that doesn't protect or respect the Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a law that forbids 1 John 1:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:22 then you have violated their First Amendment rights under the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional.

Slave holders did it. Bigots did it. And now the hypocrites are doing it. Wrapping themselves in mis-interpretations of both the Bible and the constitution to rationalize unChristian and unconstitutional positions.

Let's get real. Christians believe in the divinity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He taught those who are without sin should cast the first stone. He taught judge not lest ye be judged. He commanded that we love one another. How can those most basic I tenets be ignored just so hated, fear ans suspicion be rationalized?

If misguided bigots want to use what they perceive as their "religious beliefs" as an aegis to hide behind in order to act in an unChristian way, they should post a sign in their shop window so any sinners don't accidentally stray into their bigoted businesses. The sign should clearly state: DUE TO OUR FERVENT BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Then we can sit back and see how long their business survives.

Religious freedom! What a crock!

Yes, bigots always have, and always will, attempt to use the government to force other people to be like them, which is why I will fight you every step of the way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Injustices? Do you mean the injustices committed by bigoted homophobes who wish to create second class citizens? Are these the same injustices committed by Woolworths when they refused "colored' customers? Are these the same injustices committed by racists who also quoted from the Bible to justify their own bigotry and hate?

Being refused service for immutable characteristics is the injustice. Idiots wrapping themselves in 'Christianity' so that they can be comfortable in their own lack of worldliness is an injustice.

Don't give me "religious beliefs" as an excuse for lack of humanity. Religion, particuarly Christianity is supposed to be inclusive, not divisive. The "religious" angle is hypocrisy, blasphemy and heresy all rolled into a ball only racists, bigots and homophobes find appealing. It is laughable as a defense.

Let me know when you want to discuss from both sides of the issue and when you are ready to listen and not argue.

Which Christians have it right? The Amish? Pentecostal snake handlers? Greek Ortodox? Presbyterians? Methodists? United Baptists or Southern Baptists?

In fact, they all subscribe to thebasictenets of the faith.

Which Christians want to cherry pick the Bible and use dogma to justify their hatred? Aren't those the Christians claiming their faith prohibits them from providing THE VERY SAME SERVICES THEY WOULD PROVIDE FOR HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES as the services requested by homosexual couples?

We've see people useBiblical interpretations to justify racism before. How is this 'religious' claim any different?

All of them.

 

[Bumberclyde]

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals.

uh, no.....they said they chose not to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believed that gay marriage was wrong......the gay couple admitted in the law suit that they were frequent customers of the shop and that the manager had sold them baked goods even though he knew they were a gay couple.....obviously it was not their homosexuality that he objected to, but their marriage ceremony......

It would be interesting to know why the bible left out the part where Jesus says: "Let no gays marry". Or did I miss that part?

 

[jon_berzerk]

And a baker requires payment, as does a wedding photographer, a florist, a caterer. And if a customer has that payment, there is no legal reason to deny services. They cannot citer homosexuality as cause to deny services. Such vendors are not invited guests at the affair. They don't bring a toaster oven as a gift. They are to provide services, not judgments.

the hotels require payments

the hotels provide a service

if the person is not 21 they do not accept a payment

they turn them away

so they discriminate various customers

Because there's a national law about minors...

The age of majority depends upon jurisdiction and application, but is generally 18 so nice try

Hotel Policies

Most states allow hotels to use discretion in setting minimum age requirements. Upscale hotels, particularly those located in known party destinations, may prefer to cater to an older, more sedate clientele. These hotels typically set a higher minimum age requirement, which may be 21 or even 25.

Minimum Age Requirement for Renting Hotel Rooms | USA Today

 

[PostmodernProph]

The vendor in question, and the Arizona and Kansas laws are written due to individuals claiming Christianity is prohibiting them from providing services to homosexuals.

uh, no.....they said they chose not to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believed that gay marriage was wrong......the gay couple admitted in the law suit that they were frequent customers of the shop and that the manager had sold them baked goods even though he knew they were a gay couple.....obviously it was not their homosexuality that he objected to, but their marriage ceremony......

It would be interesting to know why the bible left out the part where Jesus says: "Let no gays marry". Or did I miss that part?

it isn't biblical, its societal......society for hundreds of years defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman......its the gay couple that's missing some parts......

then along came some radical liberals who said "fuck what society has said, we want something and we're going to make society give it to us".........

and if some mere baker thinks he has the right to refuse to buckle under, well shucks, we'll just force him out of business.....

oh well, its all progress, right?.....

 

[Nosmo King]

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

the bakery was put out of business......do you pretend that isn't damage?.......

Why was the business shut down? By decree of the state? Or because society refused to trade with a bigoted business?

 

[Nosmo King]

being coerced by the state is ALWAYS damage......

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

Let me make it simple for you, this is everything you need to know about the government and force.

• Without force, there would be no government.
• Everything the government does is coercion.
• Force is the only real tool the government has.
• Government=Force.

Any questions?

Would you prefer Anarchy or mob rule?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

the bakery was put out of business......do you pretend that isn't damage?.......

Why was the business shut down? By decree of the state? Or because society refused to trade with a bigoted business?

if I recall it was a rabid pack of liberal bigots.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Bull. Are Civil rights laws seen as coercive? How about speed limits?

The damage is the discrimination. The damage is done by the repression. Blaming the state to assure equality in accommodation is a truly lowly form of rationalization.

Let me make it simple for you, this is everything you need to know about the government and force.

• Without force, there would be no government.
• Everything the government does is coercion.
• Force is the only real tool the government has.
• Government=Force.

Any questions?

Would you prefer Anarchy or mob rule?

????....the Arizona bill was intended to block your mob rule......