No, that's not what I said. I pointed out that refusing to carry dogs or alcohol is NOT invidious discrimination.
I told you so
- Thread starter canceled.2021.1
- Start date
No, that's not what I said. I pointed out that refusing to carry dogs or alcohol is NOT invidious discrimination.
Steelplate
New member
But a gay wedding reception is not a demonic ritual.
Steelplate
New member
Some people can't take a zinger style joke...but I bet they have no problem making them when the opportunity arises.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Never said it was and you arrived at that conclusion.
Steelplate
New member
I was speaking in general, realistic terms. A gay wedding reception is at bleat 1000 times more likely than a demonic ritual
.
In short, you were engaging in over the top bullshit. I tried to bring it down to a realistic situation
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
If you're going to speak in "generalizations" you need to preface it so; because after attempting to deal with you, in other areas that you're ignorant of, it isn't obvious what your doing.
Auster
New member
I dont think thats true. I would like to think that behind the anonymity of the internet and puppet accounts lie rather mature individuals. At least relative to society. Of course it would seem were getting more immature by the genertion . . .
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Man you are stupid. I didn't say it was. Queer marriage is going to be used as an assault on peoples religious freedoms from being able to freely choose NOT to associate with deviant queers. Are you that dense?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yes I am very comfortable with it. That is the essence of freedom. If a business wants to voluntarily forgo business they should be allowed to. It is a different animal if the government codifies and forces the discrimination like the democrats did with Jim Crow laws. That I don't support. But, I believe you should have the freedom to associate or not associate with whomever you choose for whatever reason you choose.
You merely back up the point of the OP
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
DING DING DING. We have a winner
Retard, whether the state recognizes the ceremony as a legal marriage or not has no bearing on this case.
You are free not to associate with homosexuals. You can't have a public business and discriminate against specific classes of citizens.
Your kind already used the religious justification for discrimination and that was rejected. Maybe if your idiot ancestors were not so desperately grasping for any reason to justify extreme levels of hatred of others then you would still have this as an argument.
I know where you are at on it. Your view is an extreme minority but at least consistently stupid. Idiots like you can be used to scare people away from tolerating discrimination against any specific class.
Let's imagine a world run by retards like ila.
Before beginning to do business with a certain provider you might have to determine whether they serve people of your race, ethnicity, national origin, religion (including the specific sect), political views, gender, age range, sexual preference, dominant hand, hair color, whether you buy American or foreign merchandise, what sports teams you cheer for, whether you think Miller Lite tastes great or is less filling and on and on into endless stupidity. That creates a large burden on you as a consumer who bears the cost involved and it is inefficient.
This is why I stated that IF allowed, the burden of this should at least be on the bigots. They don't want to serve homosexuals then put out a sign. They should not take their money for years and then decide at the last minute that they won't serve them on a big event where the customer might benefit from having a relationship with a provider. Many of the possible restrictions are based on the private information of the customer that they might not want to disclose. The bigot is the one with the restrictions and the burdens, costs and invasive disclosures should be borne by them. Further, other consumers should know that they are a bigot as it might influence their choice.
But the problems go beyond that. As a libertarian I am not comfortable with state enforcement of your bigoted attitudes. You don't want to serve Jews at your restaurant. Okay, but what if one comes in anyway? Will you call the cops to have them removed? Are they guilty of trespass and should the state prosecute? What if they did not see your sign or can't read it? What if you only thought they were a Jew? Or maybe we leave you to remove them and you overreact or are in error about the point of your discrimination? The whole thing opens a can of worms, creates way too many complications and leads to the state subsidizing your bigoted views.
So you are not free to practice your right to be a bigoted moron? Ohhhh, the injustice! Don't open a business that is open to the public and to some small degree, supported and subsidized by all. If you want to have some membership only club maybe we can accommodate you, but otherwise fuck off!
Before beginning to do business with a certain provider you might have to determine whether they serve people of your race, ethnicity, national origin, religion (including the specific sect), political views, gender, age range, sexual preference, dominant hand, hair color, whether you buy American or foreign merchandise, what sports teams you cheer for, whether you think Miller Lite tastes great or is less filling and on and on into endless stupidity. That creates a large burden on you as a consumer who bears the cost involved and it is inefficient.
This is why I stated that IF allowed, the burden of this should at least be on the bigots. They don't want to serve homosexuals then put out a sign. They should not take their money for years and then decide at the last minute that they won't serve them on a big event where the customer might benefit from having a relationship with a provider. Many of the possible restrictions are based on the private information of the customer that they might not want to disclose. The bigot is the one with the restrictions and the burdens, costs and invasive disclosures should be borne by them. Further, other consumers should know that they are a bigot as it might influence their choice.
But the problems go beyond that. As a libertarian I am not comfortable with state enforcement of your bigoted attitudes. You don't want to serve Jews at your restaurant. Okay, but what if one comes in anyway? Will you call the cops to have them removed? Are they guilty of trespass and should the state prosecute? What if they did not see your sign or can't read it? What if you only thought they were a Jew? Or maybe we leave you to remove them and you overreact or are in error about the point of your discrimination? The whole thing opens a can of worms, creates way too many complications and leads to the state subsidizing your bigoted views.
So you are not free to practice your right to be a bigoted moron? Ohhhh, the injustice! Don't open a business that is open to the public and to some small degree, supported and subsidized by all. If you want to have some membership only club maybe we can accommodate you, but otherwise fuck off!
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
If your business can't discriminate then you do not have the freedom to not associate with queers. You really are stupid aren't you. As for "my kind", it was democrats who passed all of those Jim Crow laws which I know you libtards want to conveniently forget.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Let's imagine a world run by retards like ila.
Before beginning to do business with a certain provider you might have to determine whether they serve people of your race, ethnicity, national origin, religion (including the specific sect), political views, gender, age range, sexual preference, dominant hand, hair color, whether you buy American or foreign merchandise, what sports teams you cheer for, whether you think Miller Lite tastes great or is less filling and on and on into endless stupidity. That creates a large burden on you as a consumer who bears the cost involved and it is inefficient.
It really is the essence of freedom is it not? I didn't say I agree with it, just that it should be allowed. Lots of things I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I would impose my view on others as you would.
This is why I stated that IF allowed, the burden of this should at least be on the bigots. They don't want to serve homosexuals then put out a sign. They should not take their money for years and then decide at the last minute that they won't serve them on a big event where the customer might benefit from having a relationship with a provider. Many of the possible restrictions are based on the private information of the customer that they might not want to disclose. The bigot is the one with the restrictions and the burdens, costs and invasive disclosures should be borne by them. Further, other consumers should know that they are a bigot as it might influence their choice.
If a business wants to forgo money for its beliefs, it should be allowed to.
But the problems go beyond that. As a libertarian I am not comfortable with state enforcement of your bigoted attitudes. You don't want to serve Jews at your restaurant. Okay, but what if one comes in anyway? Will you call the cops to have them removed? Are they guilty of trespass and should the state prosecute? What if they did not see your sign or can't read it? What if you only thought they were a Jew? Or maybe we leave you to remove them and you overreact or are in error about the point of your discrimination? The whole thing opens a can of worms, creates way too many complications and leads to the state subsidizing your bigoted views.
Yeah, right. You are a libertarianMy guess is that you just want to smoke pot. If you believe in freedom then you wouldn't spout this nonsense. Why would they have to remove them? They just don't have to serve them. They would eventually leave. No need to call the cops. Now if word got out that they didn't serve others I am sure it would impact their business. Or maybe it wouldn't. That is the beauty of freedom. You statists like to use the gobblement to force your beliefs on others. I do not.
So you are not free to practice your right to be a bigoted moron? Ohhhh, the injustice! Don't open a business that is open to the public and to some small degree, supported and subsidized by all. If you want to have some membership only club maybe we can accommodate you, but otherwise fuck off!
You are a liberal dressed up in libertarian clothes. I am not impressed
Your argument is the same as those Democrats.
Your freedom and rights don't allow you to burden others. You are free to hang out with the Klan, Neo Nazis or whatever other PRIVATE group you like. But society and other individuals should not be burdened by your irrational desire to exclude others from a business open to the PUBLIC. It serves no state interest.
Ad hom. You are a racist piece of shit that failed to further discussion with a substantive response.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Sounds a lot like the federal government.
Ila, you just want freedom to discriminate against minorities. I haven't smoked in months and may never do so again.
But i see you did respond with some shred of substance you just screwed up the quotes.
If they only refused them service and did not molest them in anyway that would be one thing but it has nothing to do with the reality of how segregation actually happens. For instance, the bigots in Georgia had police remove a boy of mixed race and that event was a bit more private than a restaurant.
It is inevitable that such behavior in the public sphere will lead to confrontations and the burden of that will not fall only on the bigot but on the victim and those who would oppose the bigot.
You ignore the details in this case in the same way, to argue for some general principle based on fantasy. I am not really interested in pursuing your racist science fiction and there is nothing about it that is libertarian.
But i see you did respond with some shred of substance you just screwed up the quotes.
If they only refused them service and did not molest them in anyway that would be one thing but it has nothing to do with the reality of how segregation actually happens. For instance, the bigots in Georgia had police remove a boy of mixed race and that event was a bit more private than a restaurant.
It is inevitable that such behavior in the public sphere will lead to confrontations and the burden of that will not fall only on the bigot but on the victim and those who would oppose the bigot.
You ignore the details in this case in the same way, to argue for some general principle based on fantasy. I am not really interested in pursuing your racist science fiction and there is nothing about it that is libertarian.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Yes, I believe that people should have the freedom to discriminate based on race or whatever reason they choose. As I have said plenty of times but apparently flies right over your head, that doesn't mean I support the actual act. I don't think people should discriminate against people because of race, but I think they should be allowed to do so. Why is that so complicated for you to understand? Too deep a thought?
As for the case in Georgia you cite, are you talking about a recent case or something from the sordid days of democrat Jim Crow south?