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

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
963
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
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.
I'm not you, and bloodlust is a different thing than sexual lust.
Another mental midget weighing in
I'm not stupid, and I'm not a fool, either. Nor am I "short."
standing in line at walmart. In front of them in line are two homosexuals getting it on hot and heavy
It's an entire roast chicken. Greasy as heck as well as hot and heavy, about $5, what do they charge for it? Is it still warm when your wife takes it home and sets it on the dinner table?
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
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
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
I absolutely did

As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone. But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.

Injustice affects us all and these laws are an injustice.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
963
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
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?
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.
No one is pushing anything on you.

But I'll bet grandma would have kept her trap shut if it was a hetero couple engaging in PDA at the store right?

And who appointed you the arbiter of "evil" anyway.

I find it a bit hypocritical when you don't want other people to "force" their lifestyle on you but you have no problem forcing your beliefs on other people
 
Last edited:

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
21,216
Reaction score
1,408
Points
190
Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Because it's ignorant to thing that it's not genetic. Dems are just trying to help the GOPers not look so dumb.
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
Only you could say an anti discrimination law forces business to favor certain people. And here's the thing. if you don't like public access laws then you can open a business in your basement and only invite the people you want to serve.



And the analogy is actually sound because it is your premise that when any law applies to only some people that it is oppressing the people that it applies to.

So the fact that a business can buy things you can't is ,by your "logic" discriminating against you and everyone else that can't buy them
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
Only you could say an anti discrimination law forces business to favor certain people.

And the analogy is actually sound because it is your premise that when any law applies to only some people that it is oppressing the people that it applies to.

So the fact that a business can buy things you can't is ,by your "logic" discriminating against you and everyone else that can't buy them
I never said it forces them to favor certain people I said it FORBIDS them from doing so. Exactly the opposite of what you say only I could cllaim.

Wrong it a massive false comparison . By definition it is a backwards comparison
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
Only you could say an anti discrimination law forces business to favor certain people.

And the analogy is actually sound because it is your premise that when any law applies to only some people that it is oppressing the people that it applies to.

So the fact that a business can buy things you can't is ,by your "logic" discriminating against you and everyone else that can't buy them
I never said it forces them to favor certain people I said it FORBIDS them from doing so. Exactly the opposite of what you say only I could cllaim.

Wrong it a massive false comparison . By definition it is a backwards comparison
Like I said if the laws bother you all you have to do is have your business be a private club and you can be as big of a bigot as you want to
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
Only you could say an anti discrimination law forces business to favor certain people.

And the analogy is actually sound because it is your premise that when any law applies to only some people that it is oppressing the people that it applies to.

So the fact that a business can buy things you can't is ,by your "logic" discriminating against you and everyone else that can't buy them
I never said it forces them to favor certain people I said it FORBIDS them from doing so. Exactly the opposite of what you say only I could cllaim.

Wrong it a massive false comparison . By definition it is a backwards comparison
Like I said if the laws bother you all you have to do is have your business be a private club and you can be as big of a bigot as you want to
Or we could sioomply make it a habit to do away with such laws.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
2,170
Points
195
As I pointed out earlier laws against rape and murder dont affect me because I would not harm someone.
So you are saying you would not be harming anyone if you committed rape or murder? That is absurd.
But I would object if a few people were exempt from such laws.
So you consider yourself exempt from or above such laws, but somehow you object if others have any defense in court?
No I am saying the laws do not affect me because I would never do such things.

I consider myself exempt from npothing my point is exactly the opposite that no one sho\uld be exempt from laws and all shoud be subject to them equally.
All business owners are subject to the same laws
But the rest of us are not making the law en exercise of discrimination against a minority.
The rest of you aren't business owners.
Business owners are citizens and part of the public. The law is discriminatory and is designed to oppress a minority.
There is no oppression.

Tell me do you want to be able to buy dangerous chemicals just because some business people are allowed to and the general public is not?

Isn't the fact that a business can buy thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals and you can't oppressing you?
Yes there is

It oppresses the individual right to discriminate in favor of certian people . When the general population can do so and we CAN but a minotiy cannot THAT is oppression.

Your analogy is a ffalse comparison. It would only work if the populationb in general could byu chemicals and a chemical company could not
Only you could say an anti discrimination law forces business to favor certain people.

And the analogy is actually sound because it is your premise that when any law applies to only some people that it is oppressing the people that it applies to.

So the fact that a business can buy things you can't is ,by your "logic" discriminating against you and everyone else that can't buy them
I never said it forces them to favor certain people I said it FORBIDS them from doing so. Exactly the opposite of what you say only I could cllaim.

Wrong it a massive false comparison . By definition it is a backwards comparison
Like I said if the laws bother you all you have to do is have your business be a private club and you can be as big of a bigot as you want to
Or we could sioomply make it a habit to do away with such laws.
never gonna happen.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
963
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
The head-shrinks are on board with this thread.


>>>On November 13, 2020, Peter Sutcliffe died unmourned in the University Hospital of North Durham after refusing treatment for Covid-19. Known as the Yorkshire Ripper, Sutcliffe was convicted of the murder of 13 women and the attempted murder of seven others between 1975-1980. At no time did Sutcliffe appear to show any remorse for what he had done.<<<

Death by arranged disease is not a normal mode of execution in accordance with any due process of law.

The "serial killer" is a Mafia trope anyways. Those are always professional Mob hits, murder-for-hire contracts, and the condemned is a "fall guy" who doesn't even know who the boss is, some hooker broke into his home and stole his underwear to plant crap at the crime scenes.
 

Soupnazi630

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
7,393
Reaction score
1,019
Points
265
The head-shrinks are on board with this thread.


>>>On November 13, 2020, Peter Sutcliffe died unmourned in the University Hospital of North Durham after refusing treatment for Covid-19. Known as the Yorkshire Ripper, Sutcliffe was convicted of the murder of 13 women and the attempted murder of seven others between 1975-1980. At no time did Sutcliffe appear to show any remorse for what he had done.<<<

Death by arranged disease is not a normal mode of execution in accordance with any due process of law.

The "serial killer" is a Mafia trope anyways. Those are always professional Mob hits, murder-for-hire contracts, and the condemned is a "fall guy" who doesn't even know who the boss is, some hooker broke into his home and stole his underwear to plant crap at the crime scenes.
How is it an execution of he refused treatment?

What evidence do you have that serial killers are a mafia trope?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top