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

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,460
Reaction score
13,718
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Once again we do not define what the proper standards are for running a business. A law imposed on people defines no such standard it merely empowers the government to use force.
Okay, now you are getting silly....

The gun industry has not made the USA awash in hand guns. It always has been awash in gunhs. We have always had a vheavily armed populace and yes in case the government needs to be resisted. And yes that is feasible.
That's not true at all. Guns in colonial times were rare. The reason why the NRA was founded to start with was because during the Civil War, Americans were so unfamiliar with guns, they had no idea how to use them when millions of men were drafted. Up until the 1970's, there just weren't that many guns around... and the NRA actually supported sensible gun control.

Then two things happened. 1) The Nuts took over the NRA and 2) the Gun Industry started promoting gun proliferation for "protection" when people stopped hunting as a sport.

Here's the thing. The idea of a mob of armed assholes overthrowing the government was never what the Founding Slave Rapists had in mind with the Militia Amendment. They always saw the Militias as something the states would run, not be something average citizens would be making the decision... Hence, "Well-Regulated". I'm all for Well-Regulated Militias, I was a member of one for years.

There are manyt good reasons to own a gun. Not that it matters since rights are not based on a need or reason. The claim that they are more likely to kill house hold members is a myth. It is amazing how you willfully ignore outdated claims like that.
Not a myth at all. We have 39,000 gun deaths a year. 23,000 of those are suicides and 1000 of those are accidents. That leaves the 16,000 homicides. Of those, the vast majority are people being killed by family members, lovers or acquaintences. Very very few are legitimate acts of self-defense by civilians. (About 200 a year according to the FBI). 1000 a year are killed by police, but a lot of them are unarmed, which is why we have black folks in the streets right now because they've had quite enough of that shit.
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,029
Points
265
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
2,127
Points
1,903
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
The humor me and answer it again
Does anyone know the price of eggs in China today ?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
The humor me and answer it again
Does anyone know the price of eggs in China today ?
I don't eat eggs from any country
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,029
Points
265
Once again we do not define what the proper standards are for running a business. A law imposed on people defines no such standard it merely empowers the government to use force.
Okay, now you are getting silly....

The gun industry has not made the USA awash in hand guns. It always has been awash in gunhs. We have always had a vheavily armed populace and yes in case the government needs to be resisted. And yes that is feasible.
That's not true at all. Guns in colonial times were rare. The reason why the NRA was founded to start with was because during the Civil War, Americans were so unfamiliar with guns, they had no idea how to use them when millions of men were drafted. Up until the 1970's, there just weren't that many guns around... and the NRA actually supported sensible gun control.

Then two things happened. 1) The Nuts took over the NRA and 2) the Gun Industry started promoting gun proliferation for "protection" when people stopped hunting as a sport.

Here's the thing. The idea of a mob of armed assholes overthrowing the government was never what the Founding Slave Rapists had in mind with the Militia Amendment. They always saw the Militias as something the states would run, not be something average citizens would be making the decision... Hence, "Well-Regulated". I'm all for Well-Regulated Militias, I was a member of one for years.

There are manyt good reasons to own a gun. Not that it matters since rights are not based on a need or reason. The claim that they are more likely to kill house hold members is a myth. It is amazing how you willfully ignore outdated claims like that.
Not a myth at all. We have 39,000 gun deaths a year. 23,000 of those are suicides and 1000 of those are accidents. That leaves the 16,000 homicides. Of those, the vast majority are people being killed by family members, lovers or acquaintences. Very very few are legitimate acts of self-defense by civilians. (About 200 a year according to the FBI). 1000 a year are killed by police, but a lot of them are unarmed, which is why we have black folks in the streets right now because they've had quite enough of that shit.
Wrong.

What I stated was fact it was not silly you simply have no intelligent argument to the contrary.

The US ppopulation was commonlty and heavily armed in colonial times and after. The NRA did not form until after the civil war and is has never been taken over by nuts. They are consistent in their defense of human rights

Your cllaim that gun ownership was nt common was long ago crushed and debunked. As is your claim about gun ownership causing the death of household members. Long ago the truth came out about your claim and falsehood is simply twisting and perverting the facts, The gtruth us yes ost murders KNOW or are ACQUAINTED with their victim but that is not the same as being part of the same house hold.


Tenn ppercent of all homocides are self defense and in fact most shootings by police are legitimate even if the target is unarmed such as Micheal Brown and . Darren Wilson which was PROVEN a justified shooting. You have no citation and no evidence.
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,029
Points
265
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
2,127
Points
1,903
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
The humor me and answer it again
Does anyone know the price of eggs in China today ?
I don't eat eggs from any country
My comment was in the form of a question about the price, and not who consumes.
 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
2,127
Points
1,903
Whoever keeps commenting on this thread is super gay....tag your it.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
What post number?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
The humor me and answer it again
Does anyone know the price of eggs in China today ?
I don't eat eggs from any country
My comment was in the form of a question about the price, and not who consumes.
And anyone with an IQ of 80 would realize that since I don't eat eggs I would not know the price of eggs in any country.
 

badbob85037

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
882
Reaction score
697
Points
908
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?
By law, a man must be at least 18 years of age to have the right to refuse anal sex.
It's a developmental disorder.
A developmental disorder being the exceptional case where the right of a man 18 or over to refuse anal sex is revoked.
It's not a 'born that way' that has you wanting to take your penis and stir another man's septic tank it's a sick perversion of the sticking a gun to your head and blowing you head off kind.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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?
By law, a man must be at least 18 years of age to have the right to refuse anal sex.
It's a developmental disorder.
A developmental disorder being the exceptional case where the right of a man 18 or over to refuse anal sex is revoked.
It's not a 'born that way' that has you wanting to take your penis and stir another man's septic tank it's a sick perversion of the sticking a gun to your head and blowing you head off kind.
Another mental midget weighing in
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,029
Points
265
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
I am not being forced to because I am not a business owner. WHich is the law is discriminatory applying only to a minority
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
I did and in this quote tree you did not answer the question
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,029
Points
265
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
I did and in this quote tree you did not answer the question
I did
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,266
Reaction score
2,174
Points
195
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.
They discriminate against business and property owners. Customers and tenants may discriminate all they wish.

Yes and I would never harm someone so murder laws are not a burden to me, but I would object of some people were exempt from murder laws
Wow, Blues Man's view that life would be fair if we only empower government to use guns to force us to be fair is totally and absurdly naive.

Government makes us be fair, and then life is fair. Just wow.

As a long time business owner and taxpayer and American citizen and driver's license holder in this country, I've experienced a hell of a lot from government. "Fair" isn't one of them
I never once used the word "fair".

In fact I never use that word because I know it's bullshit.

If you want to run a business that is open to the public then you have to allow the public entry.

And you say you do anyway so there is no burden on you but only on those that want to hang signs that say Ni##ers, Queers, Jews and Gooks not allowed
The public is not a real entity and no business is ever open to the public . All businesses are open only to customers who by definition are select individuals . Therefore all business owners discriminate are just as everyone else does.
Semantics.

Just because you sell an item that only a portion of the population will buy does not mean you are not open to the public.
yes it does mean that

No business provides goods and services they sell goods and services

Customers may discriminate all they wish it is abuse of government power to selectively discriminate against business owners
So if you sell a product that only 7.2% of the people in your town buy from your retail store you are telling me that you are not a business that is open to the public?
And ALL business owners that are open to the public must follow the same rules so there is no discrimination against business owners
Wrong they are not open to the public.
They are in fact all being discriminated against . No such law applies to customers. The fact that business owners are a minority and the law only applies to them proves that they are being discriminated against.
Of course they are open to the public.

Anyone can walk into any retail establishment and buy anything they want.

If you want to make your business a private for fee membership club you have an argument.

By your "logic" Walmart is not open to the public if 1 person in the country does not shop there.
Wrong.

They are only.open to select individuals.

some people have no money or enough money to buy what is for sale. By definition every business is a private entity not just clubs
Wrong.

People with no money can enter your store and look around.

You cannot require that a person shows you their bank statement and their available credit before they walk into a store.
Wrong
Many business can and they routinely do throw out those who like around without buying anything

You can tell them to buy something or.leave
yes but only AFTER they have entered the store.

You can't turn them away at the door
sure can

" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone "

that sign hangs on many businesses nationwide
Yeah but how many actually do turn people away at the door for any reason?

And if they do because those people are Black or gay or whatever they'll not only end up in court but the current public attitude to such discrimination will also bring another whole world of shit down on them.
A few do like.for example. If someone tried to come in who is too filthy

They should not be taken to court they should be left alone to fail.The law is wrong and discriminates . People have the right to discriminate the government should never be permitted to do so .

these laws discriminate
Now you're cherry picking.

Yeah some guy that stinks of shit and urine can be denied entry for health and safety reasons just like the no shirt no shoes no service policy which is legal.

So tell me who are you being "forced " to deal with in your business that you want to deny service to?
It may be cherry picking but still proves the point businesses are open to select persons not the public.

I am. It being forced to do so. I am not a business owner and therefore the law does not apply to me because it discriminates against a minority.

any law which practices what it forbids should be repealed
Cherry picking never proves anything but that outliers exist.

So tell me who exactly are you being "forced" to do business with that you want to deny service to?
Wrong

In this argument it proves my point

Asked and answered
All cherry picking ever proves is that there are always exceptions to every rule.

That's called the real world not the world of absolutes which is the world you live in
in this case the rule is contradictory and proved my point.

We have no equality under the law when the law discriminate s against minorities as anti discrimination laws do
If the law treats all members of a group exactly the same there is no discrimination.

And you still haven't told me who you are being forced to do business with that you would otherwise refuse service to.
Wrong

If the law fails to treat EVERYONE the same then it is by definition discriminatory

I have indeed answered you
No you haven't told who you want to refuse service to that the big bad government is forcing you to do business with.

And all business owners are treated the same under the law.
That is a lie.

I answered you

Business owners are a minority who are discriminated against under the law.
No you did not.

But then again I didn't expect you to.
That is a lie.

I absolutely did
Then humor me and answer it again
Scroll up and read it and stop posting false accusatons
I did and in this quote tree you did not answer the question
I did
No you did not.

But then you go and say you don't even own a business so you're whining about a law that has absolutely no bearing on your life.

I guess you just like to whine
 

badbob85037

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
882
Reaction score
697
Points
908
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?
No one cares what someone elses thinks. But when they push on someone to except what another person sees as perverted and mentally sick it's wrong. As if your mother and two young grandsons are standing in line at walmart. In front of them in line are two homosexuals getting it on hot and heavy. Your mother in a nice way ask the two if they would tone it down around your two young grandsons and they respond by really starting to show their sickness where the whole line and finally every person in the store is repulsed with their show. You walk from the back of the store to see this crap going on right next to your mother and grandsons. You respond by following them out of the store and tell them how you feel about their actions. While they are picking up the items they bought that are now scattered around the parking you see the security guards watching them pick up those items and do nothing to you for correcting them on their evil ways. would that be justified or did I infringe on those sick fucks rights? What you do behind closed doors don't mean nothing to me. They can do it till they bleed. It doesn't concern me. But when they force my mother and grandsons the fear of catching some sexual plague that will kill me leaves me and both sick-os got what they deserved and would have dished out more if not for those security guards that didn't say or do anything about my talk with them. Like I said what they do behind closed doors has no effect on me but when you bring that crap in my direction there is going to be Hell to pay. Until bleeding hearts as you made this the norm these freaks of nature knew their place so I guess we can blame people like you for bring this mental sickness out in the open. So enjoy the show perv.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,460
Reaction score
13,718
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
The US ppopulation was commonlty and heavily armed in colonial times and after. The NRA did not form until after the civil war and is has never been taken over by nuts. They are consistent in their defense of human rights
Okay, again, read the history of the NRA and why it was founded... Then read about the corruption of the organization today... hope you enjoyed buying Wayne's suits for him.

Your cllaim that gun ownership was nt common was long ago crushed and debunked. As is your claim about gun ownership causing the death of household members. Long ago the truth came out about your claim and falsehood is simply twisting and perverting the facts, The gtruth us yes ost murders KNOW or are ACQUAINTED with their victim but that is not the same as being part of the same house hold.
It would be nice if you could spell... or maybe just proofread your posts before you waste my time on them.

The reality-
Guns were rare in Colonial Times.
Mass production and proliferation of guns is a modern thing.
Most people are murdered by people they know and love.

Tenn ppercent of all homocides are self defense and in fact most shootings by police are legitimate even if the target is unarmed such as Micheal Brown and . Darren Wilson which was PROVEN a justified shooting. You have no citation and no evidence.
That's not accurate at all.

We have 19,929 homicides in this country a year.

Cops shoot 1000 people a year... most of those probably aren't justified at all.

Darren Wilson murdered Mike Brown in the street. The corrupt prosecutor who covered for him was voted out of office.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days