Democrats to bureaucratize sex in California

[londonfog]

To be clear, I wasn't dismissing his argument on the freedom to disassociate. I was only attempting to correct what I saw as a poor analogy.

I know how I feel and how I do business. I really am torn between my interest in as little government involvement in the marketplace as possible and my abhorrence that anyone could be so vile as to refuse service over race, sexual preference, etc.

I realize that you were not dismissing his argument,but you understand that rape and making a sandwich comparison is ridiculous

 

[abandonconflict]

One of these incidents happened on-post, and formal charges were never filed due to the pics I cited.

The other happened off-post during a block leave period, and charges were actually filed, but dropped prior to going to court.

The U.S. military has been pretending females were an asset to the force since before I first enlisted, and it only got worse when Clinton got elected. The right thing to do is analyze the data concerning chicks, realize that it is largely a mistake to include them in the force, except for a very limited list of duty positions, and stop enlisting them and assigning them to duties they have no business being in. That won't happen though.

Well if there is a picture of her with a bottle in her ass, she clearly consented to sex with anyone who wanted to have their fun with her...

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm raping the fuck out of him when I ask for wheat bread

You'd better check with the Interstate commerce people, that wheat bread thing again. Oh never mind, that was PRO

Logically, I can see the point you're making and even how you arrived there. I think the problem with the analogy is the tenuous correlation between "a person comes to your house and rapes you" and "a person enters your store to buy goods that you presented as for sale to the public".

Example:

An American Indian walks into your doughnut shop. There is a box of day old doughnuts on a table near the door. Being an angry descendant of General Custer, you refuse to sell him the box of doughnuts. He places more than enough money to cover the posted price plus any sales tax, grabs the box and exits. Who was harmed and exactly how were they harmed? You received the full payment you were offering the goods for and sold goods that were soon to go from an asset to an expense.

The only harm I can see is mental. You weren't allowed to express your prejudice and it pisses you off. Not you personally, but you as in the store owner in this example.

As a current small business owner and seasoned salesman, the only color I see in my customers is green.

I think the issue has been presented as a racist thing, when I view it as a property right thing.

Please keep in mind I am not advocating people discriminate based on something as silly as a racial difference. I am advocating that a property owner, if he remains on his property should decide with whom he will interact with, trade with etc. If another person makes that decision for the owner, hasn't the owner suffered some kind of loss to his property right?

So if a person, say an 8 year old uncle buck, only wants to invite kids with habitrails to his birthday party and some ninja turtle playing / no gerbil owning kid shows up, I think it is 'lil Buck's perogative to tell him to hit the road and take his ninja turtles with him.

The whole issue is about force. If a person doesn't own something, the only way you can acquire it legitimately is thru an agreement, not thru the application of force, then it becomes a kind of theft.

 

[Rob Roy]

I realize that you were not dismissing his argument,but you understand that rape and making a sandwich comparison is ridiculous

Yet you never have told me how you reconcile approving the using of force (or a threat of the use of force) to have a person prepare a sandwich for somebody against their will.

 

[IRON-EYES]

Guess how you find sex in the desert?

 

[Rob Roy]

Guess how you find sex in the desert?

I'm thinking a desert horny toad would know.

 

[londonfog]

Yet you never have told me how you reconcile approving the using of force (or a threat of the use of force) to have a person prepare a sandwich for somebody against their will.

are you preparing sandwichs to the public or is this a private club ???

 

[IRON-EYES]

You know anyone being threatened into making sandwiches you don't have it so bad



Fucking visit India

 

[IRON-EYES]

Maybe you REALLY need that sandwich


I dunno

 

[IRON-EYES]

I can see it now hello is this Amnesty International yes yes they're making me make sandwiches


Here Comes the swat team

 

[UncleBuck]

I think the issue has been presented as a racist thing

imagine that.

you want to be able to deny service to people based solely on their skin color and you get called racist for it.

well that, and all the racial slurs you use and all the racial animosity you display.

mind boggling.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Better man then me .. I refuse to read his shit. Too damn long saying nothing

Don't worry, we all know you probably have a reading handicap.

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't worry, we all know you probably have a reading handicap.

better than a heroin addiction and a sexuality you have to hide from your daddy lest he cut you off for being an AIDS ridden queer.

 

[Rob Roy]

are you preparing sandwichs to the public or is this a private club ???

Ahhhh, the word flip. The proper question is ; Is the sandwich shop owned by, "the public" or by a private entity?

The nature of the customer does not change the nature of who owns the property does it? No, it doesn't.

For a valid transaction to take place, one party cannot be dictating that a transaction will take place, while the other party is making it clear they do not want to transact. When that happens, you are tactically speaking, using a rapist method.

 

[Rob Roy]

imagine that.

you want to be able to deny service to people based solely on their skin color and you get called racist for it.

well that, and all the racial slurs you use and all the racial animosity you display.

mind boggling.

I want people to associate on a consensual basis and to be able to exercise control over their justly acquired property, but not to be able to control the property of others unless there is a valid agreement absent force or threats of it. You don't.

It wouldn't be right for you to force a person to do anything, if they aren't doing something to you.

I acknowledge that some rudimentary concepts boggle your mind. I suggest a better diet and more exercise.

 

[londonfog]

Ahhhh, the word flip. The proper question is ; Is the sandwich shop owned by, "the public" or by a private entity?

The nature of the customer does not change the nature of who owns the property does it? No, it doesn't.

For a valid transaction to take place, one party cannot be dictating that a transaction will take place, while the other party is making it clear they do not want to transact. When that happens, you are tactically speaking, using a rapist method.

I suggest that sandwich maker or owner make his/her sandwich at a PRIVATE CLUB, then he/she can make that sandwich for only whom he/she wants. If that is not the case and the sandwich maker or owner is creating sandwiches open to the public, I will be taking mine on wheat with little mayo and hot mustard please. I will gladly pay and leave a tip...and no I will not be needing a combo meal, but thanks for asking.