What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?

[kaz]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If you choose to be gay there's gotta be something wrong with you. I think it's a choice. I've never seen any kids talking about how they want to be queers when they grow up.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

So you're lying anticipating if you don't someone will do something to someone.

The dishonesty of the left in full bloom.

What if you're wrong? Then you're just a liar

Your post makes no sense. What am I supposedly lying about?

The abuse of gay children has been happening for years. Gay conversion therapy is only banned in 20 US states. Fear of being gay is the leading cause of teen suicide in the USA.

The Lies and Dangers of "Conversion Therapy"

Virginia becomes 20th state to ban conversion therapy

Virginia is the first Southern state to prohibit the widely discredited practice, which tries to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

www.nbcnews.com

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2020/03/federal-government-introduces-legislation-to-criminalize-conversion-therapy-related-conduct-in-canada.ht

Germany is 5th country to ban conversion therapy for minors

The discredited practice purports to turn a gay person straight, and jurisdictions around the world have moved to prohibit it.

www.nbcnews.com

Explain why nearly all homosexuals are victims of homosexual rape when they were children.

Fake news

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

 

[kaz]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If you choose to be gay there's gotta be something wrong with you. I think it's a choice. I've never seen any kids talking about how they want to be queers when they grow up.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

Oh, shut up. You're like a cartoon.

Triggered again?

You're the one who's arguing that it has to be genetic because you've decided that lying is a better solution because of your own delusional paranoia about what someone might think. Now that's triggered.

You don't even live here, you're just the nosy neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz

What bullshit. You asked what difference it makes whether it's genetic or choice. I gave you the reasons why it matters. Now you're trying to twist everything I posted, and accuse me of lying. You keep trying to play games with left wing posters, and twist our responses, and you're really, really bad at it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

Your stupid reindeer games are blowing up in your face.

If you care about children you must reject The Homesexual Joe Biden Agenda.

90% of pedophiles in jail are homosexuals and the overwhelming number of homosexuals are the victims of pedophilia.

Link

It's with the link I asked you for showing that we actually need laws where government aims guns at it's citizens and forces us to do business with each other. It wasn't provided

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

I disagree.

It costs me nothing to allow everyone access to my business.

I'm there anyway.

And you can still refuse service for a myriad of reasons.

 

[Blues Man]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If you choose to be gay there's gotta be something wrong with you. I think it's a choice. I've never seen any kids talking about how they want to be queers when they grow up.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

Oh, shut up. You're like a cartoon.

Triggered again?

You're the one who's arguing that it has to be genetic because you've decided that lying is a better solution because of your own delusional paranoia about what someone might think. Now that's triggered.

You don't even live here, you're just the nosy neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz

What bullshit. You asked what difference it makes whether it's genetic or choice. I gave you the reasons why it matters. Now you're trying to twist everything I posted, and accuse me of lying. You keep trying to play games with left wing posters, and twist our responses, and you're really, really bad at it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

Your stupid reindeer games are blowing up in your face.

If you care about children you must reject The Homesexual Joe Biden Agenda.

90% of pedophiles in jail are homosexuals and the overwhelming number of homosexuals are the victims of pedophilia.

Link

It's with the link I asked you for showing that we actually need laws where government aims guns at it's citizens and forces us to do business with each other. It wasn't provided

Where does it say 90% of pedophiles are homosexual?

I didn't see that in the article

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

I disagree.

It costs me nothing to allow everyone access to my business.

I'm there anyway.

And you can still refuse service for a myriad of reasons.

Freedom scares some people. You've still given zero justification for your support of government having a legitimate power to aim guns at it's citizens and force us to sacrifice our liberty and property rights to the will of bureaucrats and politicians.

And what's most bizarre is your complete and utter trust of government to use such power in a reasonable fashion. Government has never justified your blind trust and obedience in them.

Constitutionally, can you show me where your due process rights are waived when money changes hands? I can't find that part

 

[DukeU]

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

People who believe in abortion, and that gay is genetic, give very little thought to the fact that both abortion and choosing a gay lifestyle cause big problems for these people. Abortion causes many mental health issues such as self destructive behavior, as well as depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and guilt just to mention a few.

A homosexual lifestyle leads to shockingly high suicide rates as well as many health risks.

A kind and considerate person would not ignore these facts.

 

[kaz]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If you choose to be gay there's gotta be something wrong with you. I think it's a choice. I've never seen any kids talking about how they want to be queers when they grow up.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

Oh, shut up. You're like a cartoon.

Triggered again?

You're the one who's arguing that it has to be genetic because you've decided that lying is a better solution because of your own delusional paranoia about what someone might think. Now that's triggered.

You don't even live here, you're just the nosy neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz

What bullshit. You asked what difference it makes whether it's genetic or choice. I gave you the reasons why it matters. Now you're trying to twist everything I posted, and accuse me of lying. You keep trying to play games with left wing posters, and twist our responses, and you're really, really bad at it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

Your stupid reindeer games are blowing up in your face.

If you care about children you must reject The Homesexual Joe Biden Agenda.

90% of pedophiles in jail are homosexuals and the overwhelming number of homosexuals are the victims of pedophilia.

Link

It's with the link I asked you for showing that we actually need laws where government aims guns at it's citizens and forces us to do business with each other. It wasn't provided

Where does it say 90% of pedophiles are homosexual?

I didn't see that in the article

Read posts 180 and 181. Then try reading this one again, you missed it the first time

 

[kaz]

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

People who believe in abortion, and that gay is genetic, give very little thought to the fact that both abortion and choosing a gay lifestyle cause big problems for these people. Abortion causes many mental health issues such as self destructive behavior, as well as depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and guilt just to mention a few.

A homosexual lifestyle leads to shockingly high suicide rates as well as many health risks.

A kind and considerate person would not ignore these facts.

I drink alcohol even though some people are alcoholics.

I drive cars even though some people have road rage.

You really can't go backwards like that logically. You could say a high percentage of people in accidents have road rage or alcohol problems, but that doesn't mean that if you drink alcohol or drive cars that you have road rage or are an alcoholic.

I do not think that most of the gays I know would be happier or better adjusted if they tried to be straight when they are not

 

[Soupnazi630]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

 

[DukeU]

You really can't go backwards like that logically.

I don't see that it is going backwards, I also don't see the connection with the examples you cited. Have you had any abortions? Are you gay? I don't get it.

The choices people make in their lives has an effect on how they feel about themselves good and bad.

 

[kaz]

You really can't go backwards like that logically.

I don't see that it is going backwards, I also don't see the connection with the examples you cited. Have you had any abortions? Are you gay? I don't get it.

The choices people make in their lives has an effect on how they feel about themselves good and bad.

OK, I'll explain it again. You can't say that a higher percentage of gays are pedophiles, therefore someone who is gay is more likely to be a pedophile. It's referred to as an "ecological fallacy."

I'll give you an example.

- Suppose that having been molested as a male child by a man does make someone more likely to molest male children.

Then it is logical to conclude that if you were gay child molester, then you were more likely to have been molsted by a man.

But you cannot extrapolate that to gays who were not molested as children. They are different segments of the population

 

[DukeU]

But you cannot extrapolate that to gays who were not molested as children. They are different segments of the population

There most likely are many, many reasons people choose to be gay...... Influence of a single parent household, rebellion, and abuse just to name a few.

Don't get me wrong, I believe people have the right to be whatever they choose. But I do believe it is a choice and I don't agree with the lifestyle.

 

[kaz]

But you cannot extrapolate that to gays who were not molested as children. They are different segments of the population

There most likely are many, many reasons people choose to be gay...... Influence of a single parent household, rebellion, and abuse just to name a few.

Don't get me wrong, I believe people have the right to be whatever they choose. But I do believe it is a choice and I don't agree with the lifestyle.

Well, I certainly agree that no one should force you to live a gay lifestyle

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

That's because your business has under 50 employees and you are exempt from most discrimination laws.

I fired a black woman the same day I fired two white women and a white guy.

The black woman ran to government and said ... it's racism. It's sexism. kaz doesn't like me.

While the government didn't really agree with her and they conceded that the demographics for the people I fired were not out of line with my company overall, they wouldn't let the fucking thing go. Getting them to end it is endless. That's how they operate.

Something is wrong with your story if you really own all that and you don't know what government does to small business owners. Even the Democrats I know who are business owners are disgusted

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Actually they are among the most oppressive. Government uses them to trample businesses all the time. You obviously never owned a business.

There is nothing more dangerous than worthless laws. Government abuses the hell out of them.

Note I asked why we need them, and your response was you think we do. Zero actual evidence. Good luck finding evidence. We bend over backwards to find customers, we don't look for reasons to drive them away. That's just ignorant.

And that you support government pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do business with another citizen just makes you a tyrant and an enemy of liberty

Actually I own rental properties so I know quite a bit about anti discrimination laws.

And like I said I believe we need anti-discrimination laws.

You already told me your baseless opinion. I asked for evidence there's a need for it.

So you don't care about money, you just care about the color of the people you're dealing with? What sex they are? That's what you're telling me?

Most business owners are not like that. We work like hell for customers, we want the $$$

if you already "work like hell" for all customers how does any anti discrimination law even affect you? Do you have customers answer a questionnaire about their personal lives so you can decide which ones you don't want in your place?

And I rent to anyone who proves they can pay. i run credit checks and I call employers and references.,

I never deny anyone an apartment who can pay. I don't care if they are gay, Black, Brown, or if they are single mothers or whatever.

I hold them very strictly to the lease agreements and have evicted people on rare occasion.

So the equal housing laws I have in my state are no burden on me at all.

And I do know people get denied housing for being the wrong color because i have seen it.

I have also lived on the streets for a short time when i was 18 so I know what it's like not to have a place to live.

And in closing most is not all.

Just because you may not discriminate in no way means others don't

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

I think anti-discrimination laws ARE needed.

And as laws go they are some of the least restrictive.

Why would you need an anti discrimination law which discriminates?
You
Or why should a law forbid persons from doing what the state does with the law.

Whhen we say equality under the law it means government must not be allowed to discriminate.

People however have the right to discriminate however they choose. Discrimination is nothing more than a choice based on preference.

Tell me how anti discrimination laws discriminate and who do they discriminate against?
I have both commercial and residential rental properties
I have to deal with fair housing laws all the time.

But since i would not refuse anyone with the ability to pay rent the laws are not a burden on me at all.

That's because your business has under 50 employees and you are exempt from most discrimination laws.

I fired a black woman the same day I fired two white women and a white guy.

The black woman ran to government and said ... it's racism. It's sexism. kaz doesn't like me.

While the government didn't really agree with her and they conceded that the demographics for the people I fired were not out of line with my company overall, they wouldn't let the fucking thing go. Getting them to end it is endless. That's how they operate.

Something is wrong with your story if you really own all that and you don't know what government does to small business owners. Even the Democrats I know who are business owners are disgusted

I am not exempt from equal housing laws and those are a hell of a lot more strict than pubic access laws

And I have never been negatively affected by those laws and I don't think you have either