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

[bripat9643]

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

 

[bripat9643]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No, it wasn't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

The reality is, it doesn't matter. In this case the law is the law my ignorant child.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, I'm honest.

No, you are not.

You have every right to remain one of the willfully ignorant, fixed in a little box of ideas and unwilling to escape.

Interesting. I find your attempts at objectivity to leave a lot to be desired. So much for being a "pragmatist." I like those thinly veiled insults of yours, by the way.

Next time quote the entire passage,

I'll quote whatever the hell I want. I'm well within the rules by selecting and quoting elements of your post. Go read the forum rules. Now are you more interested in lecturing me about how I quoted your post, or will you address the responses in my previous posts?

otherwise you will find me less tolerant and one of those I point out in the following paragraph which you chose to eliminate

Ahh, threats. You were never tolerant to begin with.

Yes, you have every right to lie. No, not a threat, a promise. One can be objective and opinionated as well as pragmatic. Maybe you need a dictionary?

Post something of substance, sans an ad hominem and I'll respond appropriately. Don't and you'll get what you deserve.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No it wasn't, but if it was it's a can't-lose argument against states rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was, moron. I have thoroughly researched the subject. You can make a fool of yourself if you want to continue down this vein.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Infallibility has nothing to do with it. The legal authority of the Supreme Court is what it is, right or wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No it wasn't, but if it was it's a can't-lose argument against states rights.

States rights is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry of you find that document embarrassing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those provided for white Americans. This decision institutionalized a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades."
Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Everyone clear now?

 

[Gadawg73]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

"No American" I am one and bet top coin I am not alone.

 

[bripat9643]

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Infallibility has nothing to do with it. The legal authority of the Supreme Court is what it is, right or wrong.

So you admit that some SC decisions are just plain wrong.

Thanks for playing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was, moron. I have thoroughly researched the subject. You can make a fool of yourself if you want to continue down this vein.

Fine then post your proof that all segregation was mandated in the South.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Infallibility has nothing to do with it. The legal authority of the Supreme Court is what it is, right or wrong.

So you admit that some SC decisions are just plain wrong.

Thanks for playing.

One can have the opinion that a decision was wrong without foolishly denying that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was, moron. I have thoroughly researched the subject. You can make a fool of yourself if you want to continue down this vein.

Fine then post your proof that all segregation was mandated in the South.

All segregation? How would anyone know that? However, PMH has already posted the proof that segregation was mandated in hotels and restaurants, like the one in your pic.

 

[bripat9643]

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Infallibility has nothing to do with it. The legal authority of the Supreme Court is what it is, right or wrong.

So you admit that some SC decisions are just plain wrong.

Thanks for playing.

One can have the opinion that a decision was wrong without foolishly denying that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

Yes, I also deny that, but what does it matter? The issue is whether its decisions are always correct. You just admitted they aren't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

 

[bripat9643]

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Infallibility has nothing to do with it. The legal authority of the Supreme Court is what it is, right or wrong.

So you admit that some SC decisions are just plain wrong.

Thanks for playing.

One can have the opinion that a decision was wrong without foolishly denying that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

I can hold both positions without contradiction. However, I haven't stated an opinion on the later.

The bottom line is that you admitted the court is fallible.

 

[bripat9643]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

The fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of deciding cases incorrectly is hardly irrelevant. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. Servile toadies like you defend the Supreme Court's judicial tyranny. No surprise there.

 

[Gadawg73]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

My not wanting to spend MY $$$ where I AM NOT WANTED is my own business be it if I am gay or not. I have gay folks as relatives and they are first and foremost individuals as different in so many ways same as us heterosexuals. Most do not define themselves soley on the sexual orientation same as us. I have about 30 years defending the rights of gay folks and would not bar them from anything. What I am speaking of is what myself, an individual, would do. If I am not wanted no way I want to do business with folks that would not want to serve me because I am white, 6'5", 245 lbs, blue eyes and balding head. My decision to not want to do business with someone that does not like me is in no way "accommadating the hatred of others in the name of religion". I bar no paying folks from any of my businesses, that is a completely different scenario unrelated to my post.