Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

[rightwinger]

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

They teach you that at your klan meetings?

Answer the question: Why should anyone of worried about the rights of black people if they didn't have any?

Why are you being so obtuse?

Just make your fucking point

Obviously, you're running away. Answer the question. Why should anyone be concerned about black people if they were just pieces of property with no rights?

Why are you being so obtuse?
Just make your fucking point

 

[bodecea]

For the last 50 years .....you have the right to be served

Don't like it....try to get more Jim Crow laws passed

I don't give a damn what Congress or the Supreme court says. Rights are something you are born with, not something granted by politicians. No one has the right to be served, because that means they have the right to force me to serve them. No legitimate right can involve using force against innocent people who have committed no crime.

Born with?

Then why did you deny those rights to blacks for 150 years?

I marvel at how many times I have to explain what rights are to libs.

So you're admitting that blacks didn't have any rights before the 13th Amendment was passed, correct?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

 

[bripat9643]

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

They teach you that at your klan meetings?

Answer the question: Why should anyone of worried about the rights of black people if they didn't have any?

Why are you being so obtuse?

Just make your fucking point

Obviously, you're running away. Answer the question. Why should anyone be concerned about black people if they were just pieces of property with no rights?

Why are you being so obtuse?
Just make your fucking point

I'm asking you to clarify your definition of rights rather than just swallowing whatever moronic premises you use.

Now quit running away and answer the question: Why should anyone have been upset about the treatment of black people before the 13th Amendment if they were just pieces of property with no rights?

 

[Seawytch]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

I won't discuss this any further with you Nosmo until you address the off site venues I took some trouble to describe in a previous post. If you are at a somebody's event providing a service, you are participating in that event. Period. And nobody should be forced into participating in somebody's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible. And there should be no law that punishes somebody for refusing to participate in somebody else's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible.

Nobody is "participating" in the event except the couple. If you bake a cake, you deliver the cake you leave. If you design flowers, you design, you deliver, you leave. Even a photographer or a caterer is not participating, they are taking photos or cooking and serving food and then they clean and leave. None of them are participating in the event, they are conducting the business they advertise.

PA laws have been in effect since the mid 60s on a FEDERAL level. Businesses had (some still do) religious objections to serving blacks...but they had to do it anyway for the past 50+ years. Businesses had (some still do) religious objections to serving Jews, Muslims, etc...but they've had to do it for the past 50+ years.

Either the laws apply equally or we get rid of them equally. You don't get special carve outs because you claim your religious beliefs preclude you from offering your advertised services to "certain" groups of people and you should not get special carve outs because of the business you chose to open. It's the 21st century, if you're in the wedding business, you're going to encounter gays that want to marry. If you live in a state or locality that has passed a PA law protecting gays from discrimination (unlike religion and race, sexual orientation is only protected at the local level...you know, states rights and all), you have choices. You can stop providing that particular service. There's money in cakes, flowers and photos for other events. You can move your business to one of the score or more of states that will allow you to refuse to serve gays, or you can stay where you are and provide the service you advertise to anyone who frequents your establishment.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't give a damn what Congress or the Supreme court says. Rights are something you are born with, not something granted by politicians. No one has the right to be served, because that means they have the right to force me to serve them. No legitimate right can involve using force against innocent people who have committed no crime.

Born with?

Then why did you deny those rights to blacks for 150 years?

I marvel at how many times I have to explain what rights are to libs.

So you're admitting that blacks didn't have any rights before the 13th Amendment was passed, correct?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

 

[rightwinger]

Born with?

Then why did you deny those rights to blacks for 150 years?

I marvel at how many times I have to explain what rights are to libs.

So you're admitting that blacks didn't have any rights before the 13th Amendment was passed, correct?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

If you want to make a racist statement, why don't you just do it?

You don't need me to set you up

 

[Seawytch]

Nice projection there. So when the democrats changed their mind and began voting for gay marriage it was only because they were loosing votes and credibility? Or did the democrats vote against gay marriage in the past because otherwise they would loose votes and credibility?

I think most democrats looked at things like DADT and civil unions as a middle ground where the homosexual issue would settle and go away

It did not work out that way and thankfully so

Republicans realize this is a losing issue for them in 2016 and would like it to just go away. The Supreme Court deciding for them keeps them from having to state a position either way

But there is the radical Fag Haters who just can't drop it

So no fag haters that are democrats? Would you have a link to some statistics that back up your apparent claim that democrat fag haters were just kidding and/or being pragmatic, but now their true love of fags is coming out... where the republicans are mostly still fag haters that are hoping the issue disappears? Or is this just some bullshit you are pulling out of your ass?

You are welcome to show me any anti-gay legislation being passed at any level of government by Democrats.......otherwise STFU

Hey, nimrod. It was illegal in just about every state. But if you really want an example: DOMA, was anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton, and supported by nearly every democrat.

DOMA was bad legislation demanded by Republicans

Thankfully, it was overturned by the courts.......most of it

At the very least, SCOTUS will strike down the remainder of DOMA...which will require all 50 states to recognize my legal, civil marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

They teach you that at your klan meetings?

Answer the question: Why should anyone of worried about the rights of black people if they didn't have any?

Why are you being so obtuse?

Just make your fucking point

Obviously, you're running away. Answer the question. Why should anyone be concerned about black people if they were just pieces of property with no rights?

Why are you being so obtuse?
Just make your fucking point

I'm asking you to clarify your definition of rights rather than just swallowing whatever moronic premises you use.

Now quit running away and answer the question: Why should anyone have been upset about the treatment of black people before the 13th Amendment if they were just pieces of property with no rights?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.
All you need to know

 

[Seawytch]

Whites only businesses didn't go broke in the South did they?

Remind me, what century was that in again?

The 20th idiot. You either believe businesses should be able to be whites only or you don't.

Which is it ? Youi do or don't?

Private businesses should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.

So you support repealing Title II of the Civil Rights Act then? Have you called your congressman?


Did you know that Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race and religion but laws that protect gays are STATE laws? Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yes, I support repealing that. The federal government has no authority to regulate private business. None whatsoever.

Have you told your congressman you want title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed? What was their response, just out of curiosity?

What about state laws that regulate Public Accommodation? Are you a "states rights" guy or not?

 

[bodecea]

Born with?

Then why did you deny those rights to blacks for 150 years?

I marvel at how many times I have to explain what rights are to libs.

So you're admitting that blacks didn't have any rights before the 13th Amendment was passed, correct?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

Sure you are...that's why you keep dodging rightwinger. But we know who the real coward is here....don't we?

 

[bripat9643]

I'd have no problem with that...if I were allowed to refuse to serve Christians. I'd also have less of a problem with this law if the bigots had to advertise who they won't sell to.

Why are they such cowards?

You're starting to catch on. Put up a "Christians not welcome" sign outside vegan cafe's. It would be a public service so that decent folk would know to avoid those places.

As a white man, I would never set foot in a place that had a "white's only" sign - but I defend the right of morons to shoot themselves in the foot by doing it.The left only understands violence, the concept of markets is one that few leftists can grasp.

I'm torn on this one. Since nobody can help being black or gay or whatever and it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or violate their rights in any way, I would have no problem with issuing business licenses that requires the business to serve all customers that require no service or product that any other customer wouldn't normally get. In other words I think we should be a non discriminatory society in that sense. But asking somebody to participate in a customer's event off premises is something different and I think the business owner should have discretion in whether or not to do that.

And there's the part of me that agrees with you. Liberty does allow people to be complete idiots and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they choose to do. And that would include alienating 99% of their customers by posting that 'whites only' or 'blacks only' or 'Christians only' or 'Atheists only' or whatever sign.

There is a very narrow group of merchants who must deliver their wares to an off site venue. Are you saying that such merchants should be exempt from discrimination charges simply because they deliver their wares off site?

And do they really "participate", or are they simply plying their trade?

I won't discuss this any further with you Nosmo until you address the off site venues I took some trouble to describe in a previous post. If you are at a somebody's event providing a service, you are participating in that event. Period. And nobody should be forced into participating in somebody's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible. And there should be no law that punishes somebody for refusing to participate in somebody else's event that they believe is wrong, offensive, or indefensible.

Nobody is "participating" in the event except the couple. If you bake a cake, you deliver the cake you leave. If you design flowers, you design, you deliver, you leave. Even a photographer or a caterer is not participating, they are taking photos or cooking and serving food and then they clean and leave. None of them are participating in the event, they are conducting the business they advertise.

What a load of horseshit. You simply tried to change the definition of "participate" so you can deny reality. They may not be guests, but they are participating. Whatever word you care to use, no one should be forced to be involved in any ceremony they disagree with, especially a religious ceremony like a wedding.

PA laws have been in effect since the mid 60s on a FEDERAL level. Businesses had (some still do) religious objections to serving blacks...but they had to do it anyway for the past 50+ years. Businesses had (some still do) religious objections to serving Jews, Muslims, etc...but they've had to do it for the past 50+ years.

Either the laws apply equally or we get rid of them equally. You don't get special carve outs because you claim your religious beliefs preclude you from offering your advertised services to "certain" groups of people and you should not get special carve outs because of the business you chose to open. It's the 21st century, if you're in the wedding business, you're going to encounter gays that want to marry. If you live in a state or locality that has passed a PA law protecting gays from discrimination (unlike religion and race, sexual orientation is only protected at the local level...you know, states rights and all), you have choices. You can stop providing that particular service. There's money in cakes, flowers and photos for other events. You can move your business to one of the score or more of states that will allow you to refuse to serve gays, or you can stay where you are and provide the service you advertise to anyone who frequents your establishment.

The whole point of this thread is that such laws are unconstitutional and immoral.

 

[bripat9643]

I marvel at how many times I have to explain what rights are to libs.

So you're admitting that blacks didn't have any rights before the 13th Amendment was passed, correct?

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

Sure you are...that's why you keep dodging rightwinger. But we know who the real coward is here....don't we?

You're the one who's dodging, dingbat. Yes, we know you're a coward who runs away from answering a simple question.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse them as well?

Suppose an elderly couple wanted to adopt a baby and needed a mini van. Could the dealer see this as 'deviant' and refuse the sale?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

A business has a right to refuse to do business with whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes. That's called "freedom of exchange."

You know that's not true, right?

The Right to Refuse Service
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.​

 

[bripat9643]

Remind me, what century was that in again?

The 20th idiot. You either believe businesses should be able to be whites only or you don't.

Which is it ? Youi do or don't?

Private businesses should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.

So you support repealing Title II of the Civil Rights Act then? Have you called your congressman?


Did you know that Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race and religion but laws that protect gays are STATE laws? Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yes, I support repealing that. The federal government has no authority to regulate private business. None whatsoever.

Have you told your congressman you want title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed? What was their response, just out of curiosity?

What about state laws that regulate Public Accommodation? Are you a "states rights" guy or not?

I'm against government in any form. I don't waste my time calling my Congressman about doing something no scumbag officeholder is ever going to do. You might as well ask him to tell the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse them as well?

Suppose an elderly couple wanted to adopt a baby and needed a mini van. Could the dealer see this as 'deviant' and refuse the sale?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

A business has a right to refuse to do business with whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes. That's called "freedom of exchange."

You know that's not true, right?

The Right to Refuse Service
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.​

I know what the law says, moron. I'm talking about genuine rights, not the ones Congress invented.

 

[Seawytch]

[
Welcome to reality. We "Leftists" are original thinkers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

not 'informed' by 'pundits'.

Give me your original thoughts on my post.

Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

You know why, you stupid slut. That's like putting a target on your business so sleazy operators like you can attack it.

If they refuse to serve a gay person, you don't think the word will get out?

They don't want to lose business is why. They want to be cowardly about their discrimination because they know they can't survive on bigots business alone.

 

[bodecea]

No rights which the white man was bound to respect.

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

Sure you are...that's why you keep dodging rightwinger. But we know who the real coward is here....don't we?

You're the one who's dodging, dingbat. Yes, we know you're a coward who runs away from answering a simple question.

Says Mr. "I'm too much of a coward to put a sign up declaring my deeply held principles to not serve gay people".

 

[bripat9643]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



Is that the talking point from KOS today?

Here is a thought that is not original, people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they please, for whatever reason they please, as long as the transaction is free of coercion, or fraud.

You seek to use coercion, the threat of violence, to force people to engage in business against their religious views. This violates the 1st Amendment and the 13th, but as an enemy of civil rights, you persist.

Pense took a step to protect the civil rights of people - this angers you of the left, who seek to utterly crush civil liberty.

Only in what I'll call 'the mind' of a Conservative does eroding right amount to protecting rights. Only in that Conservative 'mind' does crushing civil liberties amount to expanding them.

How does discrimination equal a civil liberty?

The racists in the Jim Crow south made the exact same arguments. You're in company with your Conservative predecessors.

You have no right to be served by any business. No one does. The business owner has the right to associate with whomever he wishes, or to not associate with whomever he wishes. That's called "freedom of association." Somehow you feel that compelling him to associate with people he has no desire to associate with increases rights. It takes a special kind of stupid to swallow that idea.

So...why be a coward about putting a "I don't serve.........." in a prominent place at your business entrance?

You know why, you stupid slut. That's like putting a target on your business so sleazy operators like you can attack it.

If they refuse to serve a gay person, you don't think the word will get out?

They don't want to lose business is why. They want to be cowardly about their discrimination because they know they can't survive on bigots business alone.

I doubt that will happen. The worst that will happen is that gay people will avoid the business. How many business owners give a damn about 2% of the population not patronizing their business?

 

[Seawytch]

Let's imagine that a married Lesbian couple walks into a car dealership. They tell the General Manager that they plan to adopt a baby and need to buy a mini van to accommodate their growing family.

Does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse to sell them a vehicle because he does not want to "participate" in their family plans?

If an African American couple comes to a dealership with the same circumstances, again, does the General Manager have a protected right to refuse them as well?

Suppose an elderly couple wanted to adopt a baby and needed a mini van. Could the dealer see this as 'deviant' and refuse the sale?

Where does an unusual misinterpretation of scripture begin to no longer be a factor in business?

A business has a right to refuse to do business with whomever it likes for whatever reason it likes. That's called "freedom of exchange."

You know that's not true, right?

The Right to Refuse Service
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.​

I know what the law says, moron. I'm talking about genuine rights, not the ones Congress invented.

Ah...I see..you're talking in theories and fantasies and everyone else is dealing in facts and life as it is, not where we want it to be.

These laws, passed by Congress, were found Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

I believe we have a right to unicorns that fart glitter! (I love this game)

 

[bripat9643]

So why would anyone be upset about slavery? Do you get upset if someone butchers a chicken or chops up a table and uses it for firewood?

To have you ask such a question shows a lot more about the missing pieces in your own soul.

Whast an idiot. I'm asking because liberals always say the most idiotic things about rights. I'm trying to clarify what their conception of rights is.

You and rightwinger don't want to answer the question because you are a couple of cowards who realize you will look like fools if you have to start explaining your ideas.

Sure you are...that's why you keep dodging rightwinger. But we know who the real coward is here....don't we?

You're the one who's dodging, dingbat. Yes, we know you're a coward who runs away from answering a simple question.

Says Mr. "I'm too much of a coward to put a sign up declaring my deeply held principles to not serve gay people".

Since you're so fearless, why don't you answer the question?