When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[Papageorgio]

Sorry, not buying it. You are contradicting your self? Gays should have the same rights but others have the right to discriminate??!! That does not make sense!

What part doesn't make sense to you?

Should the government be able to discriminate if the people say that it should through a referendum of their elected officials and the legislative process?

Of course not. This is what PA laws do, it's exactly what I'm most opposed to. Protected classes and PA laws take away the right of individuals to discriminate by imposing quite discriminatory government.

Thank you for confirming that you are against civil right which is in direct contradiction to your disingenuous assertion that you support gay rights. You are unbelievable!

My views may be inconceivable, to you, but it doesn't sound like you really understand them. I'm opposed to modern civil rights legislation, particularly the laws that establish protected classes and attempt to ban unpopular biases. It's overreach of government to tell us who we must associate with.

When I say I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us. That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will. None of us have that "right", because it isn't a right to begin with.

What!!? You just said that you oppose civil rights laws !! At the same time, you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn those laws ! WTF!! You make NO sense at all!!

??? Where did I say I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn those laws? I think the reason I seem to make no sense is that your reading stuff into what I'm saying that isn't there. Seriously, which part of my post led you to believe that I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn civil rights laws?

You're quite right in saying that I do not understand. Your writings are a bundle of contradictions and fallacies. You claim that government should not be to discriminate and that you believe in equal rights for gays, but you are perfectly willing and in fact support having the government stand ideally by and allow individuals to discriminate against gays (or anyone else?). I fail to grasp how that is not grossly disingenuous when any thinking person should readily see what the end result would be. It’s apparent that you are not really committed to equality but want to take the onus off of yourself by claiming that PA and civil rights laws are government overreach.

Then you go on to say “

I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us" and That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will.”

Well, YOU can walk into a bakery and expect to be served with curtesy and not rejected, humiliated and inconvenienced, right.? So your claim of supporting equality again falls short of being believable. I fail to see why the concocted religious beliefs of a shop owner should be allowed to trump the right of anyone who walks through the door to not be demeaned for who they are. I don’t suppose that we will ever agree on that.

As for my statement that you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn civil rights laws …to which you vehemently objected….it was a misstatement on my part. Of course you oppose using the constitution to do so.! That fits perfectly with the inconsistency of your claim of supporting gay rights by not government enforcement of rights. Typical libertarian nonsense. Social Darwinism sucks.

Hell, I have walked into to place and got poor service, people were rude. I went into a bar sat at the counter for 20 minutes and didn't get served. I just do go back, they want to act that way, to hell with them. I won't spend a dime in their establishments and I move on to better places. I don't waste my time trying to correct a business that doesn't get it.

I am all for businesses putting up a notice of their prejudice and racism. Who they will serve and not serve, then we all can make better choices of where we frequent. Those businesses would suffer and others would thrive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry, not buying it. You are contradicting your self? Gays should have the same rights but others have the right to discriminate??!! That does not make sense!

What part doesn't make sense to you?

Should the government be able to discriminate if the people say that it should through a referendum of their elected officials and the legislative process?

Of course not. This is what PA laws do, it's exactly what I'm most opposed to. Protected classes and PA laws take away the right of individuals to discriminate by imposing quite discriminatory government.

Thank you for confirming that you are against civil right which is in direct contradiction to your disingenuous assertion that you support gay rights. You are unbelievable!

My views may be inconceivable, to you, but it doesn't sound like you really understand them. I'm opposed to modern civil rights legislation, particularly the laws that establish protected classes and attempt to ban unpopular biases. It's overreach of government to tell us who we must associate with.

When I say I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us. That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will. None of us have that "right", because it isn't a right to begin with.

What!!? You just said that you oppose civil rights laws !! At the same time, you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn those laws ! WTF!! You make NO sense at all!!

??? Where did I say I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn those laws? I think the reason I seem to make no sense is that your reading stuff into what I'm saying that isn't there. Seriously, which part of my post led you to believe that I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn civil rights laws?

You're quite right in saying that I do not understand. Your writings are a bundle of contradictions and fallacies. You claim that government should not be to discriminate and that you believe in equal rights for gays, but you are perfectly willing and in fact support having the government stand ideally by and allow individuals to discriminate against gays (or anyone else?). I fail to grasp how that is not grossly disingenuous when any thinking person should readily see what the end result would be. It’s apparent that you are not really committed to equality but want to take the onus off of yourself by claiming that PA and civil rights laws are government overreach.

Then you go on to say “

I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us" and That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will.”

Well, YOU can walk into a bakery and expect to be served with curtesy and not rejected, humiliated and inconvenienced, right.? So your claim of supporting equality again falls short of being believable. I fail to see why the concocted religious beliefs of a shop owner should be allowed to trump the right of anyone who walks through the door to not be demeaned for who they are. I don’t suppose that we will ever agree on that.

As for my statement that you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn civil rights laws …to which you vehemently objected….it was a misstatement on my part. Of course you oppose using the constitution to do so.! That fits perfectly with the inconsistency of your claim of supporting gay rights by not government enforcement of rights. Typical libertarian nonsense. Social Darwinism sucks.

Hell, I have walked into to place and got poor service, people were rude. I went into a bar sat at the counter for 20 minutes and didn't get served. I just do go back, they want to act that way, to hell with them. I won't spend a dime in their establishments and I move on to better places. I don't waste my time trying to correct a business that doesn't get it.

I am all for businesses putting up a notice of their prejudice and racism. Who they will serve and not serve, then we all can make better choices of where we frequent. Those businesses would suffer and others would thrive.

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

 

[dblack]

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

It's not what I want the country to be like. And I'd boycott any business that did something like that.

I guess the difference is, I don't think the purpose of government is to force my vision of what this country should be like on other people. In my view, the role of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate what kind of society that should be.

 

[Papageorgio]

Sorry, not buying it. You are contradicting your self? Gays should have the same rights but others have the right to discriminate??!! That does not make sense!

What part doesn't make sense to you?

Should the government be able to discriminate if the people say that it should through a referendum of their elected officials and the legislative process?

Of course not. This is what PA laws do, it's exactly what I'm most opposed to. Protected classes and PA laws take away the right of individuals to discriminate by imposing quite discriminatory government.

Thank you for confirming that you are against civil right which is in direct contradiction to your disingenuous assertion that you support gay rights. You are unbelievable!

My views may be inconceivable, to you, but it doesn't sound like you really understand them. I'm opposed to modern civil rights legislation, particularly the laws that establish protected classes and attempt to ban unpopular biases. It's overreach of government to tell us who we must associate with.

When I say I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us. That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will. None of us have that "right", because it isn't a right to begin with.

What!!? You just said that you oppose civil rights laws !! At the same time, you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn those laws ! WTF!! You make NO sense at all!!

??? Where did I say I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn those laws? I think the reason I seem to make no sense is that your reading stuff into what I'm saying that isn't there. Seriously, which part of my post led you to believe that I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn civil rights laws?

You're quite right in saying that I do not understand. Your writings are a bundle of contradictions and fallacies. You claim that government should not be to discriminate and that you believe in equal rights for gays, but you are perfectly willing and in fact support having the government stand ideally by and allow individuals to discriminate against gays (or anyone else?). I fail to grasp how that is not grossly disingenuous when any thinking person should readily see what the end result would be. It’s apparent that you are not really committed to equality but want to take the onus off of yourself by claiming that PA and civil rights laws are government overreach.

Then you go on to say “

I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us" and That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will.”

Well, YOU can walk into a bakery and expect to be served with curtesy and not rejected, humiliated and inconvenienced, right.? So your claim of supporting equality again falls short of being believable. I fail to see why the concocted religious beliefs of a shop owner should be allowed to trump the right of anyone who walks through the door to not be demeaned for who they are. I don’t suppose that we will ever agree on that.

As for my statement that you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn civil rights laws …to which you vehemently objected….it was a misstatement on my part. Of course you oppose using the constitution to do so.! That fits perfectly with the inconsistency of your claim of supporting gay rights by not government enforcement of rights. Typical libertarian nonsense. Social Darwinism sucks.

Hell, I have walked into to place and got poor service, people were rude. I went into a bar sat at the counter for 20 minutes and didn't get served. I just do go back, they want to act that way, to hell with them. I won't spend a dime in their establishments and I move on to better places. I don't waste my time trying to correct a business that doesn't get it.

I am all for businesses putting up a notice of their prejudice and racism. Who they will serve and not serve, then we all can make better choices of where we frequent. Those businesses would suffer and others would thrive.

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

At least I would know going in that I'm dealing with and can choose NOT to go in because they are racist. Today we have no clue if the place is run by hypocrites or not.

What about no shirt, no shoes, no service? You are being discriminated against because of something about you? What about place that won't allow gang attire? Lots of businesses discriminate. Police can discriminate, government will discriminate. It all hidden, let's bring it out in the open and let people decide. You will find people do the right thing.

 

[Papageorgio]

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

It's not what I want the country to be like. And I'd boycott any business that did something like that.

I guess the difference is, I don't think the purpose of government is to force my vision of what this country should be like on other people. In my view, the role of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate what kind of society that should be.

That's the point black, you and many others would boycott companies that discriminate against minorities.

 

[dblack]

What about no shirt, no shoes, no service? You are being discriminated against because of something about you? What about place that won't allow gang attire? Lots of businesses discriminate.

This is a point I've been making, but it doesn't seem to register. These laws don't ban all discrimination - very few types of discrimination are actually covered - and they don't mandate that all customers be treated equally. The real goal of these laws is to target certain unpopular biases for suppression.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, not buying it. You are contradicting your self? Gays should have the same rights but others have the right to discriminate??!! That does not make sense!

What part doesn't make sense to you?

Should the government be able to discriminate if the people say that it should through a referendum of their elected officials and the legislative process?

Of course not. This is what PA laws do, it's exactly what I'm most opposed to. Protected classes and PA laws take away the right of individuals to discriminate by imposing quite discriminatory government.

Thank you for confirming that you are against civil right which is in direct contradiction to your disingenuous assertion that you support gay rights. You are unbelievable!

My views may be inconceivable, to you, but it doesn't sound like you really understand them. I'm opposed to modern civil rights legislation, particularly the laws that establish protected classes and attempt to ban unpopular biases. It's overreach of government to tell us who we must associate with.

When I say I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us. That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will. None of us have that "right", because it isn't a right to begin with.

What!!? You just said that you oppose civil rights laws !! At the same time, you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn those laws ! WTF!! You make NO sense at all!!

??? Where did I say I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn those laws? I think the reason I seem to make no sense is that your reading stuff into what I'm saying that isn't there. Seriously, which part of my post led you to believe that I oppose the use of the Constitution to overturn civil rights laws?

You're quite right in saying that I do not understand. Your writings are a bundle of contradictions and fallacies. You claim that government should not be to discriminate and that you believe in equal rights for gays, but you are perfectly willing and in fact support having the government stand ideally by and allow individuals to discriminate against gays (or anyone else?). I fail to grasp how that is not grossly disingenuous when any thinking person should readily see what the end result would be. It’s apparent that you are not really committed to equality but want to take the onus off of yourself by claiming that PA and civil rights laws are government overreach.

Then you go on to say “

I support gay rights, I mean they should have the same rights as the rest of us" and That includes the right to marry, the right to be parents, etc... It doesn't include the "right" to have a cake baked for you, or to force anyone to do business with us against their will.”

Well, YOU can walk into a bakery and expect to be served with curtesy and not rejected, humiliated and inconvenienced, right.? So your claim of supporting equality again falls short of being believable. I fail to see why the concocted religious beliefs of a shop owner should be allowed to trump the right of anyone who walks through the door to not be demeaned for who they are. I don’t suppose that we will ever agree on that.

As for my statement that you oppose the use of the constitution to overturn civil rights laws …to which you vehemently objected….it was a misstatement on my part. Of course you oppose using the constitution to do so.! That fits perfectly with the inconsistency of your claim of supporting gay rights by not government enforcement of rights. Typical libertarian nonsense. Social Darwinism sucks.

Hell, I have walked into to place and got poor service, people were rude. I went into a bar sat at the counter for 20 minutes and didn't get served. I just do go back, they want to act that way, to hell with them. I won't spend a dime in their establishments and I move on to better places. I don't waste my time trying to correct a business that doesn't get it.

I am all for businesses putting up a notice of their prejudice and racism. Who they will serve and not serve, then we all can make better choices of where we frequent. Those businesses would suffer and others would thrive.

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

 

[dblack]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You were not treated poorly because of anything about you. That is an important difference. So you would be OK for a business to put up a no n***r* sing? Is that what you want this country to be like?

It's not what I want the country to be like. And I'd boycott any business that did something like that.

I guess the difference is, I don't think the purpose of government is to force my vision of what this country should be like on other people. In my view, the role of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate what kind of society that should be.

We are not getting anywhere here an I don't suspect that we will. You claim to abhor discrimination but do not want government to have any role in curbing it. You would boycott a business that puts up an no blacks sign, but there are places in this county where an establishment might get more business for doing so. We are not talking about government enforcing my vision, or yours of what should be, but rather, what we collectively agree is a fair and just society.

You say that the "role of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society" but how EXACTLY does that work in the real world? You are living in some utopian fantasy world that does not exist. There are just to many hatful bigots among us.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil. The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field. The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

 

[dblack]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil.

That's not what I've seen. They seem "hell" bent (if you'll excuse the pun) on forcing their moral views on everyone else, particularly when in comes to matters of sexuality and personal "vices". It's actually a quite apt comparison. They just have a different list of moral values they want to force on others.

The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field.

Then why pick and choose certain kinds of discrimination to outlaw? You keep ignoring this point, but you can't deny it. Protected classes legislation doesn't level the playing field. It merely targets certain kinds of unpopular biases. Most types of discrimination aren't addressed. For example, to put it concrete terms, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against people based on economic status. But not their veteran status. In other words, you can refuse to let someone in your bar if they don't look like rich hipsters, but not if they fought in war you morally objected to. And that's just one example. In point of fact, only certain types of discrimination, those that have sufficient polticial support, are addressed. There's nothing equal about it. It's exactly the opposite of equal individual rights, it's decidedly unequal, class-based rights.

The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The Constitution applies only to government. Freedom of speech applies only to legislation that limits speech, not to private venues (like this message board, for example). Equal protection, applies only to state and federal legislation, it doesn't imply people must treat each other equally.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil.

That's not what I've seen. They seem "hell" bent (if you'll excuse the pun) on forcing their moral views on everyone else, particularly when in comes to matters of sexuality and personal "vices". It's actually a quite apt comparison. They just have a different list of moral values they want to force on others.

The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field.

Then why pick and choose certain kinds of discrimination to outlaw? You keep ignoring this point, but you can't deny it. Protected classes legislation doesn't level the playing field. It merely targets certain kinds of unpopular biases. Most types of discrimination aren't addressed. For example, to put it concrete terms, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against people based on economic status. But not their veteran status. In other words, you can refuse to let someone in your bar if they don't look like rich hipsters, but not if they fought in war you morally objected to. And that's just one example. In point of fact, only certain types of discrimination, those that have sufficient polticial support, are addressed. There's nothing equal about it. It's exactly the opposite of equal individual rights, it's decidedly unequal, class-based rights.

The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The Constitution applies only to government. Freedom of speech applies only to legislation that limits speech, not to private venues (like this message board, for example). Equal protection, applies only to state and federal legislation, it doesn't imply people must treat each other equally.

Public accommodation laws, and anti discrimination laws that are promulgated by the government that you have such disdain for apply to individuals and governs how we treat each other. Other laws such as those against creating a false public alarm and defamation set limits for free speech. All of those laws are assumed to supported by the constitution and therefor are constitutional until such time that they are invalidated by a court which is not about to happen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil.

That's not what I've seen. They seem "hell" bent (if you'll excuse the pun) on forcing their moral views on everyone else, particularly when in comes to matters of sexuality and personal "vices". It's actually a quite apt comparison. They just have a different list of moral values they want to force on others.

The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field.

Then why pick and choose certain kinds of discrimination to outlaw? You keep ignoring this point, but you can't deny it. Protected classes legislation doesn't level the playing field. It merely targets certain kinds of unpopular biases. Most types of discrimination aren't addressed. For example, to put it concrete terms, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against people based on economic status. But not their veteran status. In other words, you can refuse to let someone in your bar if they don't look like rich hipsters, but not if they fought in war you morally objected to. And that's just one example. In point of fact, only certain types of discrimination, those that have sufficient polticial support, are addressed. There's nothing equal about it. It's exactly the opposite of equal individual rights, it's decidedly unequal, class-based rights.

The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The Constitution applies only to government. Freedom of speech applies only to legislation that limits speech, not to private venues (like this message board, for example). Equal protection, applies only to state and federal legislation, it doesn't imply people must treat each other equally.

Public accommodation laws, and anti discrimination laws that are promulgated by the government that you have such disdain for apply to individuals and governs how we treat each other. Other laws such as those against creating a false public alarm and defamation set limits for free speech. All of those laws are assumed to supported by the constitution and therefor are constitutional until such time that they are invalidated by a court which is not about to happen.

If you don't think that religion divides people, that there is not much that I can do about that. Sure, they want to impose their values on everyone regardless of their beliefs and there in lies the problem And, if you feels that PA laws are "selective" and exclude some, them we need more laws that cover more people

 

[dblack]

Public accommodation laws, and anti discrimination laws that are promulgated by the government that you have such disdain for apply to individuals and governs how we treat each other. Other laws such as those against creating a false public alarm and defamation set limits for free speech. All of those laws are assumed to supported by the constitution and therefor are constitutional until such time that they are invalidated by a court which is not about to happen.

I have no disdain for government. I have disdain for bad laws. The overall purpose of government should be to prevent bullying. When, instead, in becomes a tool for bullies in the name of social engineering (or for anything else, for that matter), it's gone too far and needs to be reigned in.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil. The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field. The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The LBGT community also seeks to divide. You have to accept their lifestyle or you are absolutely wrong. No room for negotiation. That is another form of discrimination.

Government doesn't treat everyone equally, never has and never will. The government taxes those that make more money at a higher rate than low income, not equally. The government allows people with children a lower tax rate than people without, not equal. The government allows only people they choose to allow onto military installations. Government allows only people with enough money to enter a National Park, not everyone. The government does not allow blacks, women or other minorities to be discriminated against in housing or jobs. Not everyone has to laws to protect them, it is a form of discrimination. If you do not have a certain percentage of Indian in your blood you do not qualify for grants. Minority businesses have the ability to get grant money from the federal government. Minority companies have an advantage when getting government contracts. These are all forms of discrimination.

We need government I don't feel oppressed by government however it is foolish to claim the government doesn't discriminate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil. The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field. The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The LBGT community also seeks to divide. You have to accept their lifestyle or you are absolutely wrong. No room for negotiation. That is another form of discrimination.

Government doesn't treat everyone equally, never has and never will. The government taxes those that make more money at a higher rate than low income, not equally. The government allows people with children a lower tax rate than people without, not equal. The government allows only people they choose to allow onto military installations. Government allows only people with enough money to enter a National Park, not everyone. The government does not allow blacks, women or other minorities to be discriminated against in housing or jobs. Not everyone has to laws to protect them, it is a form of discrimination. If you do not have a certain percentage of Indian in your blood you do not qualify for grants. Minority businesses have the ability to get grant money from the federal government. Minority companies have an advantage when getting government contracts. These are all forms of discrimination.

We need government I don't feel oppressed by government however it is foolish to claim the government doesn't discriminate.

The LGBT "community" wants respect and equal treatment. They don't give a fuck if anyone "accepts them" or approves of them" There are a lot of groups that I don't approve of but I accept their right to exist and to be treated with dignity TO THE EXTENT that they extend the same curtesy to all others. If you want to go that rout, you can just as well accuse blacks, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, obese people and a whole lot of others who have their detractors, but just want equality, of being divisive. Obama is accused of being divisive because there are people who can't stand the idea of a black president. So do you blame Obama for that, or the racists?

Inserting how government does not treat everyone equally on the basis of income or race is just a red herring- a distraction to avoid the actual issue here.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil. The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field. The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The LBGT community also seeks to divide. You have to accept their lifestyle or you are absolutely wrong. No room for negotiation. That is another form of discrimination.

Government doesn't treat everyone equally, never has and never will. The government taxes those that make more money at a higher rate than low income, not equally. The government allows people with children a lower tax rate than people without, not equal. The government allows only people they choose to allow onto military installations. Government allows only people with enough money to enter a National Park, not everyone. The government does not allow blacks, women or other minorities to be discriminated against in housing or jobs. Not everyone has to laws to protect them, it is a form of discrimination. If you do not have a certain percentage of Indian in your blood you do not qualify for grants. Minority businesses have the ability to get grant money from the federal government. Minority companies have an advantage when getting government contracts. These are all forms of discrimination.

We need government I don't feel oppressed by government however it is foolish to claim the government doesn't discriminate.

The LGBT "community" wants respect and equal treatment. They don't give a fuck if anyone "accepts them" or approves of them" There are a lot of groups that I don't approve of but I accept their right to exist and to be treated with dignity TO THE EXTENT that they extend the same curtesy to all others. If you want to go that rout, you can just as well accuse blacks, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, obese people and a whole lot of others who have their detractors, but just want equality, of being divisive. Obama is accused of being divisive because there are people who can't stand the idea of a black president. So do you blame Obama for that, or the racists?

Inserting how government does not treat everyone equally on the basis of income or race is just a red herring- a distraction to avoid the actual issue here.

Treating someone differently for whatever reason is discrimination. I want treated equally, yet that is just a dream, no one is treated equally it doesn't exist.

 

[Skylar]

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Nonsense. My religious beliefs have an important place in all parts of my life. The First Amendment fully backs me, and fully refutes you, on this point.

The law is the law, after all; and there is no higher law in this nation than the Constitution, of which the First Amendment is part.

No, it doesn't. The 1st amendment shields you from laws specifically targeting the religious. It doesn't make you exempt from any generally applicable law that you disagree with. No court has *ever* found this to be true. You're offering us a horseshit Sovereign Citizen argument where you're only subject to laws you agree with. And can ignore any you don't.

Um, no....you're not exempt. Hate to break it to you Christians.....but the law applies to you just like it applies to everyone else. That you 'believe' you shouldn't have to pay taxes doesn't mean you don't have to pay taxes. That you 'believe' that you shouldn't have to follow PA laws doesn't mean you don't have to follow PA laws. Your entire basis of reasoning was rightfully filleted by one of the most religious, most conservative justices on the court: Justice Scalia himself:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
​

Sorry Bob....but your Christian sharia doesn't trump civil law. Anymore than Muslim Sharia does. You still have to abide the speed limits, pay your taxes, and follow your State's PA laws. Even if you 'believe' you should be exempt.

 

[martybegan]

Actually grade school in the 80's, high school and college in the 90's.

And no confusion on my part. You just won't provide an answer besides "discrimination bad, must be punished, unga bunga"

Join us here in the current century please. When it comes to business matters, you are not allowed to discriminate against people for a multitude of darn good reasons. If you cannot deal with that, then do not open a public accommodation business, and please stop whining. It's getting really old, and you just keep repeating the same old nonsense.

Still not explaining why. Just "because because because".

Because it hinders business transactions, promotes segregation, and one person's "religious" beliefs when it comes to doing business does not trump another person's civil liberties.

No, it doesn't One baker or one in 100 or 1000 bakers does not hinder business, they can find another baker. It does not promote segregation, I don't see gay lunch counters coming out of this, and there is no right to buy the cake you want for your wedding. There is a right, however to free exercise of religion, one you routinely ignore.

You do realize that by forcing the bakers to bake, you ARE violating their civil liberties? But you don't like them personally so, "fuck them". right?

That's not the way it works. No business is allowed to discriminate against a group of people for any reason. Nobody is violating their liberties. They are still entitled to follow their religious beliefs. They just cannot incorporate them into their business dealings.

You are still not answering the "why" beyond "because because because".

 

[Geaux4it]

Thank God Obama has shown us that the letter of the law is smoke and mirrors

Just because something is law doesn't make it right

Hey, you also have the right to drink battery acid.

Just have to live with the consequence of such poor decision making

-Geaux