Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?

[Syriusly]

Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.

"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage.

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.

Right marriage has been redefined to mean anything. If blood relatives want to marry, sure. Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married. Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke. Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?

And the homophobe meltdown continues.......

 

[kaz]

Here you go, maybe you are the one who got confused on the discussion because she certainly did

I didn't say I was trouncing him...but trounced he has been.

You are actually eight, aren't you?

Can't discuss the topic can you?

Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?

Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place?

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.

What post?

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't say I was trouncing him...but trounced he has been.

You are actually eight, aren't you?

Can't discuss the topic can you?

Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?

Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place?

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.

What post?

The one I responded to that got your panties in a twist. JkBigot wanted to talk about welfare and abortion. Do pay attention, dear.

 

[kaz]

You are actually eight, aren't you?

Can't discuss the topic can you?

Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?

Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place?

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.

What post?

The one I responded to that got your panties in a twist. JkBigot wanted to talk about welfare and abortion. Do pay attention, dear.

Wow, so you've been crying about it since yesterday? Since the post made you lose it like that, obviously you can find it faster than I can. Here's a hanky, try to calm down now

 

[Seawytch]

Can't discuss the topic can you?

Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?

Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place?

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.

What post?

The one I responded to that got your panties in a twist. JkBigot wanted to talk about welfare and abortion. Do pay attention, dear.

Wow, so you've been crying about it since yesterday? Since the post made you lose it like that, obviously you can find it faster than I can. Here's a hanky, try to calm down now

No. I made my point and moved on. You've kept it alive by sniveling about my trouncing comment.

 

[kaz]

Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?

Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place?

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.

What post?

The one I responded to that got your panties in a twist. JkBigot wanted to talk about welfare and abortion. Do pay attention, dear.

Wow, so you've been crying about it since yesterday? Since the post made you lose it like that, obviously you can find it faster than I can. Here's a hanky, try to calm down now

No. I made my point and moved on. You've kept it alive by sniveling about my trouncing comment.

Ouch, and the bullet hits the bone, you're really upset out this. Cracks me up, I was trying to get under your skin. Mission accomplished.

And actually, you asked me my opinion on a poster, when I asked which post, you whined, bitched and ran away

 

[Flopper]

Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.

"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage.

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.

Right marriage has been redefined to mean anything. If blood relatives want to marry, sure. Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married. Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke. Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?

Marriage still stands for the same thing
two people that love each other, want to be there for each other to share their lives, hopefully make each other happy, and yes, have a legal bond that expresses all of this to the world. God forbid they might even want to adopt an Asian child and call themselves a family, might even get a dog, but I doubt they will include the dog on their marriage license.
as far as marrying animals? pretty sure thats not in the picture, and to be honest, its this type of hyperbole from both sides on many different issues that will cause people to discount what people have to say about the ills of gay marriage.
Interesting fact, Im married, I was married before gay marriage became legal any where, I was married before the first gays got married, Im still married now even though gays are getting married. You know its really hard to believe but, my marriage has not changed one bit since gays started getting married, Ive lost no rights and nothing in my world has changed other than seeing happy couples that just a few years back had to hide their relationship. I expect I will continue living regardless of gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, I do think that a Christian business owner (such as the baker) should have the right not to be included in gay weddings if it is really against their religion and morals. Let the public decide if they want to frequent these places of business. Sooner or later it will all work out. Can you even imagine any business turning down a mixed race couple for marriage accommodations today? hard to believe it happened in the 60s and to some extent the 70s.

bottom line, Just accept that it now is, and will be forever. Might just ease a lot of pain to go ahead and celebrate their marriages instead of letting it eat away at your ass.

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

 

[kaz]

"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage.

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.

Right marriage has been redefined to mean anything. If blood relatives want to marry, sure. Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married. Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke. Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?

Marriage still stands for the same thing
two people that love each other, want to be there for each other to share their lives, hopefully make each other happy, and yes, have a legal bond that expresses all of this to the world. God forbid they might even want to adopt an Asian child and call themselves a family, might even get a dog, but I doubt they will include the dog on their marriage license.
as far as marrying animals? pretty sure thats not in the picture, and to be honest, its this type of hyperbole from both sides on many different issues that will cause people to discount what people have to say about the ills of gay marriage.
Interesting fact, Im married, I was married before gay marriage became legal any where, I was married before the first gays got married, Im still married now even though gays are getting married. You know its really hard to believe but, my marriage has not changed one bit since gays started getting married, Ive lost no rights and nothing in my world has changed other than seeing happy couples that just a few years back had to hide their relationship. I expect I will continue living regardless of gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, I do think that a Christian business owner (such as the baker) should have the right not to be included in gay weddings if it is really against their religion and morals. Let the public decide if they want to frequent these places of business. Sooner or later it will all work out. Can you even imagine any business turning down a mixed race couple for marriage accommodations today? hard to believe it happened in the 60s and to some extent the 70s.

bottom line, Just accept that it now is, and will be forever. Might just ease a lot of pain to go ahead and celebrate their marriages instead of letting it eat away at your ass.

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

 

[Flopper]

Right marriage has been redefined to mean anything. If blood relatives want to marry, sure. Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married. Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke. Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?

Marriage still stands for the same thing
two people that love each other, want to be there for each other to share their lives, hopefully make each other happy, and yes, have a legal bond that expresses all of this to the world. God forbid they might even want to adopt an Asian child and call themselves a family, might even get a dog, but I doubt they will include the dog on their marriage license.
as far as marrying animals? pretty sure thats not in the picture, and to be honest, its this type of hyperbole from both sides on many different issues that will cause people to discount what people have to say about the ills of gay marriage.
Interesting fact, Im married, I was married before gay marriage became legal any where, I was married before the first gays got married, Im still married now even though gays are getting married. You know its really hard to believe but, my marriage has not changed one bit since gays started getting married, Ive lost no rights and nothing in my world has changed other than seeing happy couples that just a few years back had to hide their relationship. I expect I will continue living regardless of gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, I do think that a Christian business owner (such as the baker) should have the right not to be included in gay weddings if it is really against their religion and morals. Let the public decide if they want to frequent these places of business. Sooner or later it will all work out. Can you even imagine any business turning down a mixed race couple for marriage accommodations today? hard to believe it happened in the 60s and to some extent the 70s.

bottom line, Just accept that it now is, and will be forever. Might just ease a lot of pain to go ahead and celebrate their marriages instead of letting it eat away at your ass.

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

 

[kaz]

Marriage still stands for the same thing
two people that love each other, want to be there for each other to share their lives, hopefully make each other happy, and yes, have a legal bond that expresses all of this to the world. God forbid they might even want to adopt an Asian child and call themselves a family, might even get a dog, but I doubt they will include the dog on their marriage license.
as far as marrying animals? pretty sure thats not in the picture, and to be honest, its this type of hyperbole from both sides on many different issues that will cause people to discount what people have to say about the ills of gay marriage.
Interesting fact, Im married, I was married before gay marriage became legal any where, I was married before the first gays got married, Im still married now even though gays are getting married. You know its really hard to believe but, my marriage has not changed one bit since gays started getting married, Ive lost no rights and nothing in my world has changed other than seeing happy couples that just a few years back had to hide their relationship. I expect I will continue living regardless of gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, I do think that a Christian business owner (such as the baker) should have the right not to be included in gay weddings if it is really against their religion and morals. Let the public decide if they want to frequent these places of business. Sooner or later it will all work out. Can you even imagine any business turning down a mixed race couple for marriage accommodations today? hard to believe it happened in the 60s and to some extent the 70s.

bottom line, Just accept that it now is, and will be forever. Might just ease a lot of pain to go ahead and celebrate their marriages instead of letting it eat away at your ass.

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money.

I own a business to make a living, just like you work for $$$. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism.

The reality, Holmes is this is strictly about government power. The businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent and their competitors are more than happy to serve their customers. The Montgomery bus system actually ... opposed ... the Jim Crow laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus and to give up their seats to whites. Why? Blacks were their best and most loyal customers. They weren't stupid, you are deluded

 

[Maryland Patriot]

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money. I own a business to make a living, just like you do. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism

WTF???
I actually not only cant find a point to argue on a KAZ post, but I also agree with it?

Going back to bed now, no way this day is going to go right for me... wait, back to bed, maybe that what Satan wants me to do..
I have no moral bearing to steer by now.
Retract that post KAZ or I will report it for something.

 

[kaz]

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money. I own a business to make a living, just like you do. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism

WTF???
I actually not only cant find a point to argue on a KAZ post, but I also agree with it?

Going back to bed now, no way this day is going to go right for me... wait, back to bed, maybe that what Satan wants me to do..
I have no moral bearing to steer by now.
Retract that post KAZ or I will report it for something.

Good job, you found personal liberty on this issue

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money. I own a business to make a living, just like you do. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism

WTF???
I actually not only cant find a point to argue on a KAZ post, but I also agree with it?

Going back to bed now, no way this day is going to go right for me... wait, back to bed, maybe that what Satan wants me to do..
I have no moral bearing to steer by now.
Retract that post KAZ or I will report it for something.

Good job, you found personal liberty on this issue

I had personal liberty on this issue, a baker should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. Refuse to enough, or to the wrong people and the business will fail. But the business owner should have the choice.
unless it has to do with medical or some other item required to maintain life. If for example a gay couple walks into Wal-Greens and one is bleeding, the store should not be able to refuse them bandages and anti-biotics to take care of the wound.
A cake is really a non issue and this whole thing went too far.

 

[kaz]

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money. I own a business to make a living, just like you do. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism

WTF???
I actually not only cant find a point to argue on a KAZ post, but I also agree with it?

Going back to bed now, no way this day is going to go right for me... wait, back to bed, maybe that what Satan wants me to do..
I have no moral bearing to steer by now.
Retract that post KAZ or I will report it for something.

Good job, you found personal liberty on this issue

I had personal liberty on this issue, a baker should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. Refuse to enough, or to the wrong people and the business will fail. But the business owner should have the choice.
unless it has to do with medical or some other item required to maintain life. If for example a gay couple walks into Wal-Greens and one is bleeding, the store should not be able to refuse them bandages and anti-biotics to take care of the wound.
A cake is really a non issue and this whole thing went too far.

Yes, I meant you have personal liberty on this issue. I am saying that's why you agreed with me on this since you sort of said wow, how did that happen? It happened because you believed in personal liberty on this, that's what I was saying. Any time you support personal liberty, you'll be on my side

 

[kaz]

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years

On this point, you are protecting NO ONE's liberty. No one has the right to force someone else to bake them a cake, so as you trample on the liberty of business owners you are doing it not for anyone's liberty.

If I bake a cake for my family, that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

If I bake a cake for a sick friend that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

That I bake a cake for money doesn't change that it is my choice and none of your business, **** off

 

[Flopper]

As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing. If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a place stay or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind. Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.

The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty. This again is why you are authoritarian leftists. An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government

Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.

How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers. They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard. It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights". It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.

So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?" Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer? You are both working for money.

I own a business to make a living, just like you work for $$$. You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for. That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous. You are free, your employer is a slave to government. You just keep telling yourself that's liberty. Actually, it's authoritarian leftism.

The reality, Holmes is this is strictly about government power. The businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent and their competitors are more than happy to serve their customers. The Montgomery bus system actually ... opposed ... the Jim Crow laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus and to give up their seats to whites. Why? Blacks were their best and most loyal customers. They weren't stupid, you are deluded

As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public. After all, it's in their best interest to so.

In a more perfect world there would be no need for civil rights laws because businesses would welcome all customers, employers would judged employees only on their merit, and governments would be blind to race and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. However, the world is far from perfect and some people will allow their prejudices to make life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness impossible for others.

I think that people that routinely practice discrimination don't every consider the real impact of their actions. When a person is snubbed or turned away by a merchant or refused a job due to discrimination, they feel they are being treated unfairly which results in hatred and resentment that they pass on to others. It's all magnified by the media which makes it even worse not better.

 

[Flopper]

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years

On this point, you are protecting NO ONE's liberty. No one has the right to force someone else to bake them a cake, so as you trample on the liberty of business owners you are doing it not for anyone's liberty.

If I bake a cake for my family, that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

If I bake a cake for a sick friend that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

That I bake a cake for money doesn't change that it is my choice and none of your business, **** off

Once your cake baking becomes a business and it's open to the public, then you are required to serve the public in accordance with the law.

 

[kaz]

As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public. After all, it's in their best interest to so.

No, businesses do not serve "the public," we serve OUR customers. Our customers are people who pay us, don't abuse our staff, dress appropriately when they enter our business, fit our business model, are profitable, etc. If you enter my business, my staff will decide if you fit our customer base.

As for your standard there should be "no problem with requiring" businesses to serve the public (who we don't serve), let's pass a law by your reasoning requiring flushing the toilet, your standard is "so there should be no problem with requiring" us to do so. Most people do flush the toilet, what's the harm? Actually, there are three problems with it:

1) It's not a legitimate power of government. No one has the right to require legally toilets be flushed just like no one has the right to force someone to build them a cake. Positive rights are an oxymoron, you have no right to compel anyone to do things for you, you only have the right to compel them to not do things to you that you don't want them to do.

2) Frivolous lawsuits. A jackass gets into a party at your house, you kick him out. The next day you get a lawsuit, you didn't flush your toilet. That's why he left your party.

3) General enforcement. Well now, the government wants to make sure you flush your toilet, it's the law, they are just enforcing the law. So now there are more laws to verify you flush your toilet and flushing the toilet is access to your home which then is access to all sorts of other things they want to verify and monitor

And a law requiring flushing the toilet is absolutely as ridiculous as a law requiring anyone to bake a cake. Here's a far easier solution in the incredibly unlikely event that happens. Walk across the street to their competitor...

 

[kaz]

Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party. In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years

On this point, you are protecting NO ONE's liberty. No one has the right to force someone else to bake them a cake, so as you trample on the liberty of business owners you are doing it not for anyone's liberty.

If I bake a cake for my family, that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

If I bake a cake for a sick friend that is my choice and none of your business, **** off.

That I bake a cake for money doesn't change that it is my choice and none of your business, **** off

Once your cake baking becomes a business and it's open to the public, then you are required to serve the public in accordance with the law.

That is why you are an authoritarian leftist and I am a classic liberal. No liberal would ever support government compelling it's citizens to implement social policy, liberalism and positive rights are mutually exclusive.

Walk across the street

 

[Flopper]

As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public. After all, it's in their best interest to so.

No, businesses do not serve "the public," we serve OUR customers. Our customers are people who pay us, don't abuse our staff, dress appropriately when they enter our business, fit our business model, are profitable, etc. If you enter my business, my staff will decide if you fit our customer base.

As for your standard there should be "no problem with requiring" businesses to serve the public (who we don't serve), let's pass a law by your reasoning requiring flushing the toilet, your standard is "so there should be no problem with requiring" us to do so. Most people do flush the toilet, what's the harm? Actually, there are three problems with it:

1) It's not a legitimate power of government. No one has the right to require legally toilets be flushed just like no one has the right to force someone to build them a cake. Positive rights are an oxymoron, you have no right to compel anyone to do things for you, you only have the right to compel them to not do things to you that you don't want them to do.

2) Frivolous lawsuits. A jackass gets into a party at your house, you kick him out. The next day you get a lawsuit, you didn't flush your toilet. That's why he left your party.

3) General enforcement. Well now, the government wants to make sure you flush your toilet, it's the law, they are just enforcing the law. So now there are more laws to verify you flush your toilet and flushing the toilet is access to your home which then is access to all sorts of other things they want to verify and monitor

And a law requiring flushing the toilet is absolutely as ridiculous as a law requiring anyone to bake a cake. Here's a far easier solution in the incredibly unlikely event that happens. Walk across the street to their competitor...

You are completely within your rights to deny service to anyone that abuses your staff or does not follow your dress code. You are also within your rights to reject any customer that does not meet your business model as long as that model does not violate anti-discrimination laws. However, when you start making assumptions about customers based on their apperance, you are on danger grounds both legally and socially.

Your statement that no one has the right to compel you to do things for others is absolutely absurd. The government certainly has the right to compel you to report your income and that of your employees for tax purposes, take steps need to meet health codes, zoning codes, building codes and other local ordinances plus a wide array of state and federal laws that require that you do things for the benefit of customers, employees and the community.

What you seem to advocate is a nation in which you are free to do anything you choose. That type of society began dying thousands of years ago. There are places on earth that come pretty close to what you desire, however I don't think you would want to live there. In our society we are all very dependent on others. That means laws and regulation and lots of them. The more dependent we become on others the more regulations there will be.