Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only in your hypothetical scenario does the restaurant use month old meat in the first place, however.
That's where the difference comes in on abortion, however. You think it's only a matter of when, whereas others would see it as a matter of if.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, the only part the government has to play is in defending the marriage contract. If the private religion wants to decide that two men or two women can get married then that's fine, all the government has to do is defend the contract that comes up. If the private religion decides that only a man and a woman can get married then the government's role remains the same.
Actually businesses have been known to lie to their customers on in the past and have been fine with it UNTIL they got caught.
A couple of examples are mcdonalds lying about using 100% vegetable oil in their fryers when in fact they added beef broth to them to add flavor and another example is food lion a few years back got caught processing old hamburger meat and adding it to breakfast sausage and then reselling it as fresh. So to believe that a business would do that as if it is only a hypoctheitcal when it has happened is beyond naive.
Abortion: righties argue that it is a life at conception and yet it doesn't count as a citizen and have actual rights until it is born in this country. Any moron who argues that someone not born in this country does not qualify for the inalienable human rights protected by our constitution should see that it should also apply to anything not yet born.
Marriage: it is a religious ceremony and the government has no right to interfere in religion and that includes defining marriage. Furthermore based on the FACT that it is a religious institution how does anyone have the right to strip that religious freedom from anyone willing to engage in it?? If a private religion wishes to marry two individual no matter their sex what right does the government have to deny them their religious freedom?? You present half of the argument and then ignore the other side of the coin that parallels your own defense of marriage.
I don't believe that the government should recognize any religious institution. However if you want to go that way then you come to the 14th amendment which provides equal protection and for the government to recognize one marriage and not another is discrimination and unconstitutional
For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.
Yeppers, indeed.Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.
Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.
I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...
...oh well, you get the point.
Spoken like a true segregationalist....Bull Connor would be proud
You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.
Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.
As I suspected.....you are totally ignorant about what segregation is
It does not mean that you can force blacks and whites to eat at the same table whether they want to or not. What it means is you cannot tell blacks they can't eat in the cafeteria at all. You can't force blacks to sit in a separate section of the movie theater or in separate swimming pools.
Did you miss the entire Civil Rights movement?
It is not against the nature of blacks and whites to sit and socialize together. It happens every day across the nation. They are even allowed to marry each other
yeah, because it's better when a restaurant can serve you month old meat that hasn't been refrigerated and is e-coli ridden.
yeppers.
*that* isn't part of the problem... the problem is people who can't tell the difference between when government is useful and when it isn't.
and the same loons who think government has no right to tell you that you can't segregate your lunch counter will tell you it's ok to tell women what to do with their own bodies or deny gays equal rights.
warped.
Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.
Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.
Operating a business, even on property you own, is not the same in terms of privacy rights, as what you might do in your own home, in a non-business context.
It doesn't mean you "support" it.Saying that people should be free to be racist on their own property doesn't make somebody racist.
It makes you a supporter and enabler of racism. I fail to see the distinction.
You believe marriage should be accessible to same-sex partners, I assume. So, are you a GLAAD and PFLAG activist? Go to pride parades on occasion?
Or does it just mean you believe people should have the ability to associate as they wish?
See what assuming does?
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.
He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.
Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".
Rand Paul is not a racist. Why, some of his best friends are black...
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
You're claiming that a business should be allowed to racially discriminate on the grounds of a right of PRIVACY?
Sorry, but nothing is for sure until the Kentuckians vote on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, and the polls close that night.
Whatever the other 49 states think of him is of no value. If enough votes go to Rand, he takes Jim Bunning's seat.
Just like Pelosi, for example.
And he's not racist, sorry to inform you of your misinformed mind, Jim.
I am glad that Rand Paul said it too! AND, I am glad that he isn't really backing down from it very much either. AND... I am glad that so many conservatives on here have been so enthusiastic in their support for Paul AND for the Arizona "show me your papers" law. The combination of those two factors will reduce the GOP's draw on blacks AND hispanics going forward. They are quickly proving themselves to be the party of white folks in general, and, more particularly, white folks who don't particularly like colored folks!
It doesn't mean you "support" it.It makes you a supporter and enabler of racism. I fail to see the distinction.
You believe marriage should be accessible to same-sex partners, I assume. So, are you a GLAAD and PFLAG activist? Go to pride parades on occasion?
Or does it just mean you believe people should have the ability to associate as they wish?
See what assuming does?
i think it's pretty clear that you can do what you want in your own home. but when you provide a service to the public, you can't discriminate based on race, religion or sexual identity.
Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.
Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.
Operating a business, even on property you own, is not the same in terms of privacy rights, as what you might do in your own home, in a non-business context.
A business is privately owned. All the property and the rights to that property were transferred to that person and when those rights were transferred they were transferred to that person alone so that person has an exclusive authority to those rights.
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.
He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.
Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".
What about the rights of the people who like to smoke and don't mind the smell? Who said you can trample their rights in favor of yours and what is the cost to society when no one has any freedom? When no individual can do what they want and execute the rights that they have?
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
You're claiming that a business should be allowed to racially discriminate on the grounds of a right of PRIVACY?
I'm saying people are free to do what they want and have any beliefs that they choose to have in their own life. This freedom gives them the right to do what they want with their own property because what is the point of having the freedom of the press if the government tells you how to use your own property by telling you what to print.
Spoken like a true segregationalist....Bull Connor would be proud
You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.
Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.
As I suspected.....you are totally ignorant about what segregation is
It does not mean that you can force blacks and whites to eat at the same table whether they want to or not. What it means is you cannot tell blacks they can't eat in the cafeteria at all. You can't force blacks to sit in a separate section of the movie theater or in separate swimming pools.
Did you miss the entire Civil Rights movement?
It is not against the nature of blacks and whites to sit and socialize together. It happens every day across the nation. They are even allowed to marry each other
To actually not allow people to use their own freedom or property as they wish is not allowing them to have the views about things that they want. A person who disagrees strongly with gay marriage or adultry should not be compelled to support that behavior by letting that behavior occur within their own property. It use to be that hotel owners would not rent to people wanting pre-maritial sex or having adulterous relationships simply because the hotel owner did not agree with it. It was there way of saying that this is wrong and I don't support this.
I agree, liberals don't understand what freedom really means. They want everyone to think and act the way they do. They're all about freedom of choice unless it's a choice they don't like.
Is that why the right is NOT expunging the more moderate republicans from the party and are so accepting of those who have differing opinons?? Oh wait, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the right is actually doing right now. LOL
Do you live in the real world or do you just make things up as you go along??
