Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[P@triot]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

Freedom and my Constitutional rights says otherwise. They say that I can be "explicit" as I want about hating somebody.

You said earlier that the law states you're not allowed to walk on the street and yell "n*gger" at somebody. That law simply does not exist and never has. You're clearly confused about laws in America.

 

[P@triot]

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

I think you miss the point.

"Hey, that restaurant just spread E. Coli in their food!"

Rational Person- "Close that place down until they come up to compliance with health codes."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business after a few babies die. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted a Health Department! It's unconstitutional!"

This, kids, is Libertarianism run amok.

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

Or let the lazy liberals open a restaurant to cater to whatever group restaurant A refuses to cater to. But you'll never see a lazy liberal do that, uh Clayton?

By the way, fascinating how your scenario only has ONE restaurant in the entire nation and that it would take "60 or 70 years to go out of business" (when in reality it would

Clayton proving once again that liberalism means unhinged idiocy.

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

I think you miss the point.

"Hey, that restaurant just spread E. Coli in their food!"

Rational Person- "Close that place down until they come up to compliance with health codes."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business after a few babies die. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted a Health Department! It's unconstitutional!"

This, kids, is Libertarianism run amok.

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

What's silly about this point of view is that civil rights laws will only ever protect minorities that have already one a critical mass of majority support. Gays and blacks wouldn't be significantly impact by the repeal of PA laws because society wouldn't stand for it. Likewise, minorities that actually are subject to widespread public bigotry won't be protected, because they don't enjoy enough public support to be added to the 'protected classes' club.

Your attempting to talk rationally to someone who believes that there is ONE restaurant in the entire nation and that it would take that restaurant "60 or 70 years" to go out of business if they refused to cater to a specific class.

At the end of the day, the liberals have had their asses handed to them in this debate and as such, they are now resorting to all kinds of absurdities out of desperation.

 

[MrDVS1]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

Freedom and my Constitutional rights says otherwise. They say that I can be "explicit" as I want about hating somebody.

You said earlier that the law states you're not allowed to walk on the street and yell "n*gger" at somebody. That law simply does not exist and never has. You're clearly confused about laws in America.

There may be no such law, but there are other laws that can be applied to such actions, laws against instigating trouble, causing a public nuisance etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you accuse your critics of racism, it's because you aren't able to make your point. Who do you think you're fooling?

Should I have expect you to get it? Should I have put something a little simpler for you? Fine, next time, just for you, I'll make things easier to understand so you don't need to think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And if they did, they've be run out of civilized society by the status quo evaluation of racism. These days, a business owner would be foolish to present and openly racist policy. The way to deal with non-coercive bigotry is non-coercive public persuasion.

Of course, in many places they would. However that doesn't mean that laws should be brought back that would risk going back to the old days. In 1776 they declared that all men are created equal and no amount of social coercion managed to change what was going on in the South.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You flat out said several times that a business has a "responsibility". That means you have a commitment. And a commitment means you owe somebody something.

Either you like playing word games, or you're really messed up.

For example, a teacher has a responsibility. This means, for example, not swearing. Do they owe someone when they are not swearing? Or is it just that they need to think about their demeanor and make sure they act irresponsibly? Where's the owing in this?

How do you go from a private business deciding for themselves who do conduct business transactions with to a police officer shooting black people in the streets? How do you make that jump? If you think businesses being forced to enter into business transactions somehow keeps police officers from being racist and/or keeps them from shooting people, you are absolutely insane. The two have ZERO correlation.

Because it's about CONSEQUENCES. Something which a lot of people seem to forget.

If businesses started denying black people access to their business, and it become something usual, even in a small way, the consequences could be pretty similar.
Maybe you should actually read what I'm writing instead of finding things just to attack all the time.

Why would I have to know about this "Stormfront" website to know that the rise in militia's has nothing to do with Barack Obama's skin color? You do know that black people existed in America before Barack Obama was elected....don't you? And how do you explain the fact that those same militia's overwhelmingly support people like Allen West and Mia Love?

You've started with a radical left-wing position and now you're trying to support it at all costs - even if it means spewing complete nonsense like "how do you think that segregation wouldn't cause a problem when police would be shooting black people in the streets". I mean, seriously, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? A restaurant being free not to bake a cake for gay people does not somehow end with police officers shooting black people. You're just so desperate to defend the position that the Dumbocrats have conditioned you to believe that you're just spewing nonsense now.

By the way, I noticed you failed to address my two biggest points from the previous post. Why is that? If it is your position that once a business decides to enter into a transaction with anyone, that makes them "public" then that means once a woman decides to enter into a sexual transaction with anyone, that makes her "public" as well and she should be forced to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with her (hey - it's your "logic" pal, not mine). In addition, by your same "logic" of a persons product being "public" and a "responsibility", I can obviously force Carrie Underwood to sing to me at my house so long as I have the money, right?

I didn't say militias (or militia's, it's not possessive), I said far right groups.

Why would you have to know about the far right in order to understand why the far right is doing what it does? Hmm..... Kind of like doing astronomy without knowing there is space outside of the earth.

The problem here isn't that I'm supporting some supposed "radical left-wing position", the problem is you're taking everything and twisting the carp out of it. I talk about consequences of actions, you then shout that I'm linking things in a completely different way.

Why did I fail to address the last bits of your post? Maybe because by the time i get to the bottom I'm just fed up because I know where this is all going to lead.
It's like history repeating itself. I know you're not going to take much notice, I know this isn't becoming a debate about minds trying to find the reality of the situation. For you it's a fight to be won. It's not academic, it's about your supremacy, making sure that your view is considered right and you will do whatever to get that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom and my Constitutional rights says otherwise. They say that I can be "explicit" as I want about hating somebody.

You said earlier that the law states you're not allowed to walk on the street and yell "n*gger" at somebody. That law simply does not exist and never has. You're clearly confused about laws in America.

Then go try it, see what happens.

There are plenty of laws which maybe see you arrested for such an act. Maybe you will be, maybe you won't. But it's always possible. Am I confused about such laws? No.

 

[dblack]

And if they did, they've be run out of civilized society by the status quo evaluation of racism. These days, a business owner would be foolish to present and openly racist policy. The way to deal with non-coercive bigotry is non-coercive public persuasion.

Of course, in many places they would. However that doesn't mean that laws should be brought back that would risk going back to the old days. In 1776 they declared that all men are created equal and no amount of social coercion managed to change what was going on in the South.

You don't seem to recognize the difference between coercively enforced discrimination and personal preference. What was going on in the South (slavery, and later Jim Crow laws) was physical bondage, and justified violence in response. But when someone doesn't want to bake a cake for someone, or serve them dinner, or put them up in their hotel overnight, it may be wrong, it may be bigoted and irrational, but it doesn't call for violence in response.

 

[P@triot]

Freedom and my Constitutional rights says otherwise. They say that I can be "explicit" as I want about hating somebody.

You said earlier that the law states you're not allowed to walk on the street and yell "n*gger" at somebody. That law simply does not exist and never has. You're clearly confused about laws in America.

Then go try it, see what happens.

There are plenty of laws which maybe see you arrested for such an act. Maybe you will be, maybe you won't. But it's always possible. Am I confused about such laws? No.

So please post a link to any state which has a law that says I can't yell "n*gger".

It doesn't exist my friend. Period. It never has - anywhere. It would be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. There are laws about vulgarity in public (because of children) but racial terms do not fall under those laws.

You really shouldn't must make stuff up and post it as "reality". You could confuse people who are not informed (maybe that's what you're hoping to do?).

 

[P@triot]

You flat out said several times that a business has a "responsibility". That means you have a commitment. And a commitment means you owe somebody something.

Either you like playing word games, or you're really messed up.

For example, a teacher has a responsibility. This means, for example, not swearing. Do they owe someone when they are not swearing? Or is it just that they need to think about their demeanor and make sure they act irresponsibly? Where's the owing in this?

Here - allow me to clue you in my friend. This is the actual definition of the word responsibility (maybe you just didn't realize the definition and have been using the word wrong for years?):

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
rəˌspänsəˈbilədē/
noun

1. the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

Now, are you going to force me to post the definition of duty or will you concede that if you have a duty to someone, you owe them?

Because it's about CONSEQUENCES. Something which a lot of people seem to forget.

If businesses started denying black people access to their business, and it become something usual, even in a small way, the consequences could be pretty similar. Maybe you should actually read what I'm writing instead of finding things just to attack all the time.

See - this is the problem. When I ask how you make the jump from private businesses being free to conduct their business as they see fit to police officers becoming both spontaneously racist and spontaneously murderous, you respond with "the consequences could be pretty similar". Um...could be? So you're just making stuff up as you go? I mean, tomorrow a racist meteor could hit the Earth and only kill black people, but I'm about 99.9999999999999999999% certain that is not going to happen. Tomorrow, vampires could rise from the dead and bite only black people. But again, logic & reason dictate that is not going to happen under any circumstances. How about we don't base policy and legislation off of what "could" happen (considering the word could encompasses literally anything a human can imagine) and instead base policy & legislation off of facts, reality, logic, and reason? Doesn't that make more sense in a civil nation?

I didn't say militias (or militia's, it's not possessive), I said far right groups.

Why would you have to know about the far right in order to understand why the far right is doing what it does? Hmm..... Kind of like doing astronomy without knowing there is space outside of the earth.

Except that, as I previously stated, black people existed before Barack Obama was elected president. So if these people hate the African American community so much, why was there any rise in support and/or membership simply because of one man getting one job if it's all based on the color of his skin?

Furthermore, as I also previously stated already, how do you explain that these same groups support Allen West and Mia Love? These two obvious and logical questions are why I can answer what the cause is without knowing anything about one absurd (and apparently racist) website. The answer of course, is that their fury is over Barack Obama's communist-marxist ideology and not the color of his skin.

The problem here isn't that I'm supporting some supposed "radical left-wing position", the problem is you're taking everything and twisting the carp out of it. I talk about consequences of actions, you then shout that I'm linking things in a completely different way.

I'm not "twisting" anything. I take everything you say at face value and explain the gaping flaw in the logic. Maybe the problem is that you do not know how to articulate your position. If that is the case, you've had ample opportunity to explain what you really meant.

Why did I fail to address the last bits of your post? Maybe because by the time i get to the bottom I'm just fed up because I know where this is all going to lead.

I've asked you three times now if you believe that I can force Carrie Underwood to sing for me at my house since she has performed private concerts before and thus (according to your own definition) has become "public" and can no longer decide for herself who she wants to enter into business transactions with.

In addition to that, I've asked you three times now if you believe rape is ok. Because, again - by your definition - once a woman agrees to have sex with even one person, she becomes "public" and can no longer deny sex to anyone else who wants it from her. So by your logic, she should be forced to have sex with anyone who wants sex from her just as a baker should be forced to provide a cake to anyone who wants a cake from them.

It's like history repeating itself. I know you're not going to take much notice, I know this isn't becoming a debate about minds trying to find the reality of the situation. For you it's a fight to be won. It's not academic, it's about your supremacy, making sure that your view is considered right and you will do whatever to get that.

Nope - it's about correcting misinformation. When you go around stating that a person would be arrested for saying the word "n*gger" or that a police officer will shoot black people if a private business is allowed to conduct business transactions as they see fit, that is serious misinformation and I' going to call you out on it. If you don't like, if you feel "dumb" when I correct the misinformation - tough. I would suggest to you then that you stop making stuff up and get your facts straight before commenting.

 

[P@triot]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

Freedom and my Constitutional rights says otherwise. They say that I can be "explicit" as I want about hating somebody.

You said earlier that the law states you're not allowed to walk on the street and yell "n*gger" at somebody. That law simply does not exist and never has. You're clearly confused about laws in America.

There may be no such law, but there are other laws that can be applied to such actions, laws against instigating trouble, causing a public nuisance etc.

And that is absolutely true. There are a host of laws that you could be charged with depending on the situation, the officer in question, etc. if they feel you are trying to incite violence, intimidate someone, and so on. However, just because an officer charges you with an offense doesn't mean a court will uphold it. A judge and/or jury may see it very differently and feel you were well within your rights to say or do what you did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So please post a link to any state which has a law that says I can't yell "n*gger".

It doesn't exist my friend. Period. It never has - anywhere. It would be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. There are laws about vulgarity in public (because of children) but racial terms do not fall under those laws.

You really shouldn't must make stuff up and post it as "reality". You could confuse people who are not informed (maybe that's what you're hoping to do?).

Oh God, this is painful.

I didn't say there was a law which specifically says you can't shout this.

I said that it can be illegal to do so under many different laws, it all depends on what the hell the situation is.

This just feels like you want to win something. It's not a debate at all.

 

[candycorn]

So please post a link to any state which has a law that says I can't yell "n*gger".

It doesn't exist my friend. Period. It never has - anywhere. It would be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. There are laws about vulgarity in public (because of children) but racial terms do not fall under those laws.

You really shouldn't must make stuff up and post it as "reality". You could confuse people who are not informed (maybe that's what you're hoping to do?).

Oh God, this is painful.

I didn't say there was a law which specifically says you can't shout this.

I said that it can be illegal to do so under many different laws, it all depends on what the hell the situation is.

This just feels like you want to win something. It's not a debate at all.

He's still trying to salvage his manhood from this:

Romney has it locked up US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[candycorn]

crickets

 

[P@triot]

So please post a link to any state which has a law that says I can't yell "n*gger".

It doesn't exist my friend. Period. It never has - anywhere. It would be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. There are laws about vulgarity in public (because of children) but racial terms do not fall under those laws.

You really shouldn't must make stuff up and post it as "reality". You could confuse people who are not informed (maybe that's what you're hoping to do?).

Oh God, this is painful.

I didn't say there was a law which specifically says you can't shout this.

I said that it can be illegal to do so under many different laws, it all depends on what the hell the situation is.

This just feels like you want to win something. It's not a debate at all.

He's still trying to salvage his manhood from this:

Romney has it locked up US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why is my "manhood" threatened over the fact that history has proven Obama and the Dumbocrats stole the election? IRS/Louis Lerner scandal ring a bell? Does the endless and rampant election fraud that has been exposed since then ring a bell? No?

Someone sounds pretty angry/frustrated over there CC. I guess that's what happens when your on the opposite side of the facts.

 

[P@triot]

crickets

I hope EVERYBODY clicks on that link. They'll see that I merely shared what the news reports were that morning (and nothing more). I didn't even make a prediction in the OP. Just shared what was reported in the news. And since I don't make the news, I think it's safe to say my "manhood" is in no way at stake.

But thanks for playing CC!

 

[candycorn]

crickets

I hope EVERYBODY clicks on that link. They'll see that I merely shared what the news reports were that morning (and nothing more). I didn't even make a prediction in the OP. Just shared what was reported in the news. And since I don't make the news, I think it's safe to say my "manhood" is in no way at stake.

But thanks for playing CC!

Nice attempt at salvaging what is left of (giggle) it. "Romney has it locked up"....sure he did. LOL. What a laugh but I assume you get plenty of giggles where your manhood is concerned.

 

[P@triot]

Oh God, this is painful.

I didn't say there was a law which specifically says you can't shout this.

I said that it can be illegal to do so under many different laws, it all depends on what the hell the situation is.

Really? Want to bet? How much money would you like to bet that you did say that?

Post #1127, page #113:

"I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law." - frigidweirdo

And here is the link for anybody that doesn't want to click page #113 and locate post #1127: Whatever ever happened to the little sign We have a right to refuse service Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This just feels like you want to win something. It's not a debate at all.

This just feels like you've been pinned into a corner with facts and are unwilling to admit you were wrong, so now you're trying to change the subject while painting the other person as a villain.

 

[P@triot]

crickets

I hope EVERYBODY clicks on that link. They'll see that I merely shared what the news reports were that morning (and nothing more). I didn't even make a prediction in the OP. Just shared what was reported in the news. And since I don't make the news, I think it's safe to say my "manhood" is in no way at stake.

But thanks for playing CC!

Nice attempt at salvaging what is left of (giggle) it. "Romney has it locked up"....sure he did. LOL. What a laugh but I assume you get plenty of giggles where your manhood is concerned.

Wow! Again, obsessed with me and my sex life. From my bedsprings to even more personal matters, you can't seem to get your mind off me.

Since you've never seen me, I can only assume it is that bizarre thing liberal women have regarding power. I just didn't realize my facts and knowledge were driving you into this big of a tizzy regarding the power you perceive I have over you and other libs here in debate.

By the way - everyone can see for themselves what was written. I don't need to "salvage" anything. They can read it and laugh at you with no influence from me...

 

[candycorn]

crickets

I hope EVERYBODY clicks on that link. They'll see that I merely shared what the news reports were that morning (and nothing more). I didn't even make a prediction in the OP. Just shared what was reported in the news. And since I don't make the news, I think it's safe to say my "manhood" is in no way at stake.

But thanks for playing CC!

Nice attempt at salvaging what is left of (giggle) it. "Romney has it locked up"....sure he did. LOL. What a laugh but I assume you get plenty of giggles where your manhood is concerned.

Wow! Again, obsessed with me and my sex life. From my bedsprings to even more personal matters, you can't seem to get your mind off me.

Since you've never seen me, I can only assume it is that bizarre thing liberal women have regarding power. I just didn't realize my facts and knowledge were driving you into this big of a tizzy regarding the power you perceive I have over you and other libs here in debate.

By the way - everyone can see for themselves what was written. I don't need to "salvage" anything. They can read it and laugh at you with no influence from me...

You wrote

"Romney Has It Locked Up"

He went on to lose not only every state he had locked up but the election 332-206.​