CDZ I want to know why it is acceptable to exclude homosexuals

[jc456]

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.

says you, I don't get an opinion on that? I see only if it lines up with yours. right, get bent.

Oh and why women are so loved in the arab world eh? Because progress has reached so far in history right? BTW, how long has that been like that. hmmm about thousands years longer than we've been the United States?

 

[G.T.]

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.

says you, I don't get an opinion on that? I see only if it lines up with yours. right, get bent.

Oh and why women are so loved in the arab world eh? Because progress has reached so far in history right? BTW, how long has that been like that. hmmm about thousands years longer than we've been the United States?

The middle east lags in human progress. EVERYone. Literally EVERYONE knows that.

And yes, you get a say - say it loud and proud. But a say doesnt mean you can infringe on someones right to patron a business open to the public and subject to anti discriminatory accommodations laws.

Our government tries its best not to sanction evil.

 

[jc456]

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.

says you, I don't get an opinion on that? I see only if it lines up with yours. right, get bent.

Oh and why women are so loved in the arab world eh? Because progress has reached so far in history right? BTW, how long has that been like that. hmmm about thousands years longer than we've been the United States?

The middle east lags in human progress. EVERYone. Literally EVERYONE knows that.

And yes, you get a say - say it loud and proud. But a say doesnt mean you can infringe on someones right to patron a business open to the public and subject to anti discriminatory accommodations laws.

Our government tries its best not to sanction evil.

no, no, no, you said all human history bub. get bent twice.

 

[G.T.]

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.

says you, I don't get an opinion on that? I see only if it lines up with yours. right, get bent.

Oh and why women are so loved in the arab world eh? Because progress has reached so far in history right? BTW, how long has that been like that. hmmm about thousands years longer than we've been the United States?

The middle east lags in human progress. EVERYone. Literally EVERYONE knows that.

And yes, you get a say - say it loud and proud. But a say doesnt mean you can infringe on someones right to patron a business open to the public and subject to anti discriminatory accommodations laws.

Our government tries its best not to sanction evil.

no, no, no, you said all human history bub. get bent twice.

Sweet jeebus


Yes, meaning TIME.

since there was humans, the species as a whole but not 100% moved toward less and less discrimination. Thats not even debatable.

The entire world used to behave as the middle east does.

 

[JoeMoma]

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

 

[G.T.]

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

 

[JoeMoma]

People discriminate just about every time they make a decision. I was discriminated against often when I first graduated from college. Most of the people at the businesses I applyed to for employment discriminated against me by not offering me a position.

 

[G.T.]

People discriminate just about every time they make a decision. I was discriminated against often when I first graduated from college. Most of the people at the businesses I applyed to for employment discriminated against me by not offering me a position.

Discrimination is a legal term as well as JUST a term.

If you were discriminated against and it resulted in not getting a job, you have legal recourse.

But then, picking someone else because they have more adept skills for the open position isnt the discrimination that's in discussion here.

At all.

 

[JoeMoma]

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

 

[G.T.]

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

 

[JoeMoma]

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

 

[G.T.]

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

 

[JoeMoma]

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

 

[G.T.]

Am i profiting from my house by entering its use into public commerce?

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

 

[Slyhunter]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

A long time ago I worked for Disney. After work I took shower at Disney before switching to street clothes. Getting out of the shower I noticed someone staring at me while they took a shower. I took a closer look. They were in there jacking off while staring at my ass. I reported them to security who refused to do anything about it. People like that belong in the closet.

 

[Spare_change]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Reducto ad absurdum ..... over-statement for dramatic purposes ...

 

[dblack]

Why is it acceptable to exclude anyone?

 

[JoeMoma]

You use public infrastructure to get to and from your house. So if you want to make use of infrastructure the basis of your argument, then acess to your house should be open to everyone, otherwise you are discriminating.

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

 

[G.T.]

The use of infrastructure isnt the basis of my argument.

The use of infrastructure to engage in public commerce for a profit is.

The two are QUITE different.

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why is it acceptable to exclude anyone?

Why is it acceptable for the burger joint down the street from me to offer a senior citizens discount to people 60 and over but not to me?

Once again, gays are not being excluded from routine products and services. It's when a few want a custom product or service that a very small percentage of business owners reject based on religious and moral grounds. Business owners should be able to choose for themselves what products and services they provide and how they provide them.