Do you support equal rights for all?

[Hellbilly]

I support freedom and liberty no matter what! Equal rights for all.

Rapists, murderers, terrorists, arsonists, pedophiles don't deserve equal rights. They don't deserve rights at all.

Due Process is equal rights.

You miss the point of this thread.

 

[RodISHI]

Do you support equal rights for all?
Heterosexuals
Gays
Transgenders
Whites
Blacks
Asians
Hispanics
Arabs
Christians
Muslims
Jews
on down the list!

Equality is a fantasy, and has no barring in the real World.

There's always going to be disparities because we're all different.

We're not equal robots, and therefor equality is stupid.

If you support equal treatment, there will still be inequality among the outcomes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then that's still inequality.

If you support balancing the scale to create equality of outcomes, as we have been doing, then there's still going to be little changes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then you still don't have equality of treatment.

I swear that Humans obsessed with equality have Asperger's or OCD or something, they too like to put things into equal little boxes.

It shouldn't be surprising that Second and Third Worlders don't understand the concept of a Constitutional government that isn't riddled with corruption and actually does seek to protect the rights of its citizens.

There's a difference between legislating that a government treat all of its citizens equally and legislating that all citizens treat each other equally. The former is workable, the latter is an exercise in futility.

The problem we're running into in the US is the effort by bleeding-hearts to right past wrongs by creating "protected classes" of people. To borrow from Animal Farm; "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". This, of course, is wrong and weakens the entire system.

If I walk in to a business open to the public I expect relatively equal treatment from everyone who works at that business.

On a personal level I agree you can't legislate peoples behavior towards one another.

If it is a privately owned business you are oppressing the owner. Public and private are not one in the same. If the public owns the business then all of the public should be treated on that basis as the same. You are wanting communism and fascism when you claim you have the right to force your personal views and choices onto another person and their personally owned property. Allowing the public onto my personally owned property would not make my property public property.

are they enjoying the benefits of public subsidized tax breaks? do they enjoy the benefits of tax paying dollars that go to their fire protection & public works depts that keep the roads clear so people can drive to do business? do they have to comply with the ADA or do you think that should no longer be in effect because they are a private business?

I have had several businesses in my time. I paid for my expenses and built the businesses. Who gets "public subsidized tax breaks", I never did. Nor did I ever ask for or receive special considerations whatsoever as a minority or woman owned business enterprise if you want to get to the nitty gritty of it all. Not to say that there were all nice state employees along the way. Some were real pricks that treated me indecently and in a manner that was unlawful just because I am a female, I didn't belong to their church (whichever variety they happened to belong to) and some did crap because I pissed them off when I didn't put up with their crap. There were those that they did not like that idea of a woman having such authority owning and operating her own business who was free to tell them 'fo' when they were out of line discriminating against my minority employees or doing other dastardly crap. I always assumed it was my business how I ran my business and fulfilled the contractual agreement that I agreed to fill for a profit. The end result was to get the job done in an efficient manner. That would be whether I was selling a product, services or manufacturing a product. I have done all three but I decided the terms I was willing to work under in each. You are saying that you should be able to lay your rules down and force me to go by your standards when I already am free and at liberty to choose my own if people want my services and if they don't they can go on down the road and find someone willing to sell themselves into that slave mold.

Seriously you are going for a huge stretch here but here we go:

If you drive on the road by my place you are driving on my property; and no I have yet to receive a dime for you to have the pleasure and convenience to be able to cross over my land to get to the land on the other side without making the long trip all of the way around it. Its mine I paid for it in full with cash when I legally bought it. Even if I had gotten a loan it would still be mine with whatever restrictions were in the loan contract. The public sidewalk area is the same way as the road. The sidewalk is generally on private land and you are free to walk there to get down the road but that doesn't mean you have any rights to enter into privately owned businesses that those sidewalks are in front of. A bar and sleeze palace on the other side of the door has restrictions generally. Don't go through that door if you do not want to see what is inside of it or if you do not meet the requirements under the restrictions in it.

Now a public business owned by corporate's is not a privately held enterprise. It is own by a group. That is a commune theory type business where certain restrictions are applied because they sold their rights to be a privately owned and operated enterprises. They are "public" and are used by the overall "public" as that is who their audience or patrons are.

Everyone pays for public works projects that still does not give you rights to make demands on my privately own property or any special provisions that you may insist on if I allow you onto my property that is not in the public road area.

ADA, the theory you desire to apply here would mean that if I owned a single family housing unit and I rent it out I would be fully obliged to make it fully accessible to accommodate anyone that may be handicap. Again you fail in recognizing the difference between what is privately held property and public property.

 

[RodISHI]

Do you support equal rights for all?
Heterosexuals
Gays
Transgenders
Whites
Blacks
Asians
Hispanics
Arabs
Christians
Muslims
Jews
on down the list!

Equality is a fantasy, and has no barring in the real World.

There's always going to be disparities because we're all different.

We're not equal robots, and therefor equality is stupid.

If you support equal treatment, there will still be inequality among the outcomes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then that's still inequality.

If you support balancing the scale to create equality of outcomes, as we have been doing, then there's still going to be little changes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then you still don't have equality of treatment.

I swear that Humans obsessed with equality have Asperger's or OCD or something, they too like to put things into equal little boxes.

It shouldn't be surprising that Second and Third Worlders don't understand the concept of a Constitutional government that isn't riddled with corruption and actually does seek to protect the rights of its citizens.

There's a difference between legislating that a government treat all of its citizens equally and legislating that all citizens treat each other equally. The former is workable, the latter is an exercise in futility.

The problem we're running into in the US is the effort by bleeding-hearts to right past wrongs by creating "protected classes" of people. To borrow from Animal Farm; "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". This, of course, is wrong and weakens the entire system.

If I walk in to a business open to the public I expect relatively equal treatment from everyone who works at that business.

On a personal level I agree you can't legislate peoples behavior towards one another.

If it is a privately owned business you are oppressing the owner. Public and private are not one in the same. If the public owns the business then all of the public should be treated on that basis as the same. You are wanting communism and fascism when you claim you have the right to force your personal views and choices onto another person and their personally owned property. Allowing the public onto my personally owned property would not make my property public property.

If forcing a business that is open to the general public........privately owned or not... to serve the general public is communism and fascism ....wait, what?

You take away that we reserve the right refuse to serve anyone sign? If so yes you are a fascist. The corporate commies appreciate you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Equality is a fantasy, and has no barring in the real World.

There's always going to be disparities because we're all different.

We're not equal robots, and therefor equality is stupid.

If you support equal treatment, there will still be inequality among the outcomes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then that's still inequality.

If you support balancing the scale to create equality of outcomes, as we have been doing, then there's still going to be little changes as some Humans are superior over others.... Then you still don't have equality of treatment.

I swear that Humans obsessed with equality have Asperger's or OCD or something, they too like to put things into equal little boxes.

It shouldn't be surprising that Second and Third Worlders don't understand the concept of a Constitutional government that isn't riddled with corruption and actually does seek to protect the rights of its citizens.

There's a difference between legislating that a government treat all of its citizens equally and legislating that all citizens treat each other equally. The former is workable, the latter is an exercise in futility.

The problem we're running into in the US is the effort by bleeding-hearts to right past wrongs by creating "protected classes" of people. To borrow from Animal Farm; "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". This, of course, is wrong and weakens the entire system.

If I walk in to a business open to the public I expect relatively equal treatment from everyone who works at that business.

On a personal level I agree you can't legislate peoples behavior towards one another.

If it is a privately owned business you are oppressing the owner. Public and private are not one in the same. If the public owns the business then all of the public should be treated on that basis as the same. You are wanting communism and fascism when you claim you have the right to force your personal views and choices onto another person and their personally owned property. Allowing the public onto my personally owned property would not make my property public property.

If forcing a business that is open to the general public........privately owned or not... to serve the general public is communism and fascism ....wait, what?

You take away that we reserve the right refuse to serve anyone sign? If so yes you are a fascist. The corporate commies appreciate you.

Nah, the fascist would force you to open the business, and the commies would take it away and then make you work in it.

 

[IResist]

Unless every citizen in this country has equal rights, we have no business putting ourselves on a pedestal.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Equal Outcomes for All !!!!! Lol

 

[RodISHI]

It shouldn't be surprising that Second and Third Worlders don't understand the concept of a Constitutional government that isn't riddled with corruption and actually does seek to protect the rights of its citizens.

There's a difference between legislating that a government treat all of its citizens equally and legislating that all citizens treat each other equally. The former is workable, the latter is an exercise in futility.

The problem we're running into in the US is the effort by bleeding-hearts to right past wrongs by creating "protected classes" of people. To borrow from Animal Farm; "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". This, of course, is wrong and weakens the entire system.

If I walk in to a business open to the public I expect relatively equal treatment from everyone who works at that business.

On a personal level I agree you can't legislate peoples behavior towards one another.

If it is a privately owned business you are oppressing the owner. Public and private are not one in the same. If the public owns the business then all of the public should be treated on that basis as the same. You are wanting communism and fascism when you claim you have the right to force your personal views and choices onto another person and their personally owned property. Allowing the public onto my personally owned property would not make my property public property.

If forcing a business that is open to the general public........privately owned or not... to serve the general public is communism and fascism ....wait, what?

You take away that we reserve the right refuse to serve anyone sign? If so yes you are a fascist. The corporate commies appreciate you.

Nah, the fascist would force you to open the business, and the commies would take it away and then make you work in it.

Then you have both at work as they desire to make you open the business in one of their names with a franchise, then to serve their desires whatever that may be and those who desire to take it over for it can be a portion of the corporation to be sold to everyone in pieces. You have those that also desire to force you with their will to work in sub-standards conditions and areas for less than what you can live on too in that corporate franchise world. I got pounded from all ends of the spectrum with the mine operation as I wouldn't sell out or partner with any of them. The American dream of starting your own business has been slaughtered in favor of the herd mentality and this type of bs is what brought that about.

Defending this type of bullshit leads down the path that many who love freedom of choice do not desire to go in.

 

[Chuz Life]

A woman has the right to kill a baby, a man does not

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

 

[BlindBoo]

A woman has the right to kill a baby, a man does not

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

 

[Aries]

A woman has the right to kill a baby, a man does not

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

No. If the fetus was early enough to abort it isn't a baby. One murder charge.

 

[Chuz Life]

A woman has the right to kill a baby, a man does not

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

Depends.

How many children is the woman pregnant with?

 

[Chuz Life]

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

No. If the fetus was early enough to abort it isn't a baby. One murder charge.

Our fetal homicide laws make no such distinction. Those laws say that a "child in the womb" is a human being in "any stage of development" and killing them in a criminal act is a crime of murder.

 

[BlindBoo]

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

No. If the fetus was early enough to abort it isn't a baby. One murder charge.

Thank you for your answer. It depends on the state.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[BlindBoo]

A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

Depends.

How many children is the woman pregnant with?

Damn, I thought it was which way the woman was facing.....Never mind.

 

[Aries]

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a "baby" (not a person) then you need to explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one in a criminal act. Convicted under any one of our State and Federal fetal homicide laws.

So if an anti-abortionist killed a woman who was going into a clinic for an abortion, should that anti-abortionist be charged with two murders or just one?

What do you think?

No fair, you first!

No. If the fetus was early enough to abort it isn't a baby. One murder charge.

Our fetal homicide laws make no such distinction. Those laws say that a "child in the womb" is a human being in "any stage of development" and killing them in a criminal act is a crime of murder.

So, the law leaves everything up to the mother. Mother doesn't want it its a fetus, mother does want it it's a baby?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

A Jew is not a person? Dayum. you fascist have this all figured out.

So, abortion, is akin to saying Jews are not Human?

Wow, not really desperate, and really dumb at all.

Saying a fetus is not human is identical to claims that Jews are not. Same claim, different intended victim.

Even a Nazi like you should be able to grasp that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

but you're trying to compare people to a collection of developing cells.

apples to oranges, moron.

When do "developing cells" become human, Cretin? Are you a promoter of the "magic vagina" theory, the idea that the labia majora confers humanity of the 'lump of cells?"

Ignorance of basic biology underpins the promotion of abortion. You have no grasp how reality functions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
A fetus is not a baby. But down that evangelical booklet and pick up a science book.
Not one is "allowed to kill babies" without going to jail.

A Jew is not a person? Dayum. you fascist have this all figured out.

So, abortion, is akin to saying Jews are not Human?

Wow, not really desperate, and really dumb at all.

thats what I am trying to figure out?

Abortion is so great, all pregnant Jews should have one.

are you really a POS or do you just like to play one behind the safety of a screen?

How do you and he differ?

I'm not seeing it....

Oh, he's a Nazi piece of shit, what does that say about you?

 

[deanrd]

Do you support equal rights for all?
Heterosexuals
Gays
Transgenders
Whites
Blacks
Asians
Hispanics
Arabs
Christians
Muslims
Jews
on down the list!

This is a list of those the GOP hates.

1. Gays
2. Muslims
3. Blacks
4. Hispanics
5. Liberals
6. Jews
7. Women's rights
8. Sick and disabled
9. College professors
10. Scientists

Funny the lists are somewhat similar.

 

[BlindBoo]

but you're trying to compare people to a collection of developing cells.

apples to oranges, moron.

When do "developing cells" become human, Cretin? Are you a promoter of the "magic vagina" theory, the idea that the labia majora confers humanity of the 'lump of cells?"

Ignorance of basic biology underpins the promotion of abortion. You have no grasp how reality functions.

When were they not human? Both the little soldier and home base were, so whats your point?