Good job Arizona

catofcuriosity said:
i shouldn't be forced to accommodate anyone just because they have a certain sexual preference or skin color. you mad bro? what the fuck for? i wouldn't refuse service to homosexuals, but i do believe in the right to do so.

so point fingers and call names. it completely validates your point.
Click to expand...

You should not be discriminating against people. Defending "the right" to do so makes it obvious that you want to discriminate.
 
abandonconflict said:
You should not be discriminating against people. Defending "the right" to do so makes it obvious that you want to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Screw your brand of political correctness. It's my right to discriminate against certain people I find disgusting or unappealing. You're judged by others as soon as you walk out the door, it's a normal response.

Never discriminated based on skin color but have for a lot of other things and that includes gays that want to push their aberrant behavior and flaunt their wacked out sexual agenda. I don't know what it is about queers but they all seem to be fixated on sex. I'll discriminate against the Occupy losers, libtards, the media who make up news rather than reporting it, gangsta rap, child porn....the list goes on and on.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Just a hypothetical I'm curious how you would answer..

What if a black business owner on the bottom floor of a 5 story building has a fire, but the only firemen that show up are white and he doesn't want any of them inside his business to put out the fire, what happens to the other 4 floors?
Click to expand...


That might be solved by the owner informing any renters that the owners intention is to permit an agent in to take care of such things as fires etc. If a potential tenant doesn't agree with the terms prior to renting they are free to make arrangements with another landlord or buy a building of their own.
 
jahbrudda said:
You're confusing public service with private business.
Public services are bound by the constitution to serve all of the public.
Click to expand...

I think the first fire depts were voluntary or similar to an insurance company, rather than "public funded". I could be wrong though.
 
fr3d12 said:
It's obvious to me that is intended to make the lives of homosexuals unbearable, why don't they just escort them to the state line and be done with it because it's apparent the intention is to run them out of state.

"Republican state Rep. Charles Macheers proclaimed that “discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful. … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill".-

He's an idiot, do these people actually believe the shit they talk. That sentence is contradictory on so many levels.
Click to expand...



While I agree with you that discriminating against somebody for gender preference is pretty dumb, isn't there a difference between controlling your own property and going onto anothers property to attempt to control that or the other property owners?
 
Rob Roy said:
While I agree with you that discriminating against somebody for gender preference is pretty dumb, isn't there a difference between controlling your own property and going onto anothers property to attempt to control that or the other property owners?
Click to expand...

It's not just about property though, the employee at the DMV who refuses service does not own the property he/she works in.
Do you not think that firing somebody or denying them hospital treatment or the service of the police is far more detrimental to individual rights than having to serve someone coffee etc when you don't want to?
Everybody if they choose should have the right to believe in the fairy tales of the bible but this is just plain old fashioned bigotry disguised as religious freedom.
I know I'd rather have a normal conversation with a gay man/woman than a bible nut telling me how the loaves and the fishes actually happened or how water was turned into wine.
I'm not against people having faith but I am against them using it to willfully harm the lives of others.
Has America not had enough of radical religious beliefs because it seems enough Americans are dying on foreign lands and indeed on home soil too because of it.
 
fr3d12 said:
It's not just about property though, the employee at the DMV who refuses service does not own the property he/she works in.
Do you not think that firing somebody or denying them hospital treatment or the service of the police is far more detrimental to individual rights than having to serve someone coffee etc when you don't want to?
Everybody if they choose should have the right to believe in the fairy tales of the bible but this is just plain old fashioned bigotry disguised as religious freedom.
I know I'd rather have a normal conversation with a gay man/woman than a bible nut telling me how the loaves and the fishes actually happened or how water was turned into wine.
I'm not against people having faith but I am against them using it to willfully harm the lives of others.
Has America not had enough of radical religious beliefs because it seems enough Americans are dying on foreign lands and indeed on home soil too because of it.
Click to expand...


The DMV worker is not protecting their property, their purpose is to help the state extort money, that's all. This is the same apparatus that purports to protect the right of an individual to be unmolested. Irony?

Firing somebody is between the employee and the employer, not you or me.

Police? Really? A pack of bad haircuts with guns.

The bible has nothing to do with this, it comes down to who, if anybody can justifiably violate anothers property rights. I think the owner as long as he'she is staying on their property should control it.

Why do you support taking away a persons right to control their own property ? Isn't it everyone's right to control their own body ,their own property, but not the body or property of another?
 
Rob Roy said:
The DMV worker is not protecting their property, their purpose is to help the state extort money, that's all. This is the same apparatus that purports to protect the right of an individual to be unmolested. Irony?

Firing somebody is between the employee and the employer, not you or me.

Police? Really? A pack of bad haircuts with guns.

The bible has nothing to do with this, it comes down to who, if anybody can justifiably violate anothers property rights. I think the owner as long as he'she is staying on their property should control it.

Why do you support taking away a persons right to control their own property ? Isn't it everyone's right to control their own body ,their own property, but not the body or property of another?
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the bible if the bill is about denying service based on religious freedom.
If a public employee refuses service based on religious beliefs well then the bill is not wholly about property rights, how can it be when the building is owned by the state?
Is it unconstitutional to deny a person medical care because of sexual orientation?
Is it unconstitutional that a police officer who is bound by law to protect and serve all citizens can refuse to come to the aid of a person because they disagree with homosexuality based on religious beliefs?

I'm just trying to understand whose rights take priority here, it's one thing to refuse to serve someone a meal in a privately owned restaurant but something completely different to refuse to come to the aid of someone in a potentially life threatening situation.
In case we have our wires crossed I'm posting about the proposed bill in Kansas that UB linked a few pages back.
 
fr3d12 said:
It has everything to do with the bible if the bill is about denying service based on religious freedom.
If a public employee refuses service based on religious beliefs well then the bill is not wholly about property rights, how can it be when the building is owned by the state?
Is it unconstitutional to deny a person medical care because of sexual orientation?
Is it unconstitutional that a police officer who is bound by law to protect and serve all citizens can refuse to come to the aid of a person because they disagree with homosexuality based on religious beliefs?

I'm just trying to understand whose rights take priority here, it's one thing to refuse to serve someone a meal in a privately owned restaurant but something completely different to refuse to come to the aid of someone in a potentially life threatening situation.
In case we have our wires crossed I'm posting about the proposed bill in Kansas that UB linked a few pages back.
Click to expand...


Let me clear it up for you then. The government is not allowed to discriminate. That means policemen, firemen, etc.

A private business should be allowed to discriminate unless it is a monopoly such as a power company, emergency hospital, etc.m

If a person wants to be stupid enough to turn away business that should be their right but the government cannot deny service.
 
NLXSK1 said:
Let me clear it up for you then. The government is not allowed to discriminate. That means policemen, firemen, etc.

A private business should be allowed to discriminate unless it is a monopoly such as a power company, emergency hospital, etc.m

If a person wants to be stupid enough to turn away business that should be their right but the government cannot deny service.
Click to expand...

Thank you but I am aware of private businesses having the rights to pick and choose who they serve.
Take a quick read of this so and then maybe answer again.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...i_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html
 
fr3d12 said:
Thank you but I am aware of private businesses having the rights to pick and choose who they serve.
Take a quick read of this so and then maybe answer again.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...i_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html
Click to expand...

I am not interested in particular bills. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and that is not currently the law. The civil rights act said that private business owners cannot discriminate based on color. I feel that the legislation infringes upon the rights of one individual based on the color of another individual and thus should be unconstitutional, especially in our current situation.
 
jahbrudda said:
Even though I take the same position as nlxsk1 when it comes to private businesses (nothing to do with gays or race), I think the Kansas law sucks and is unconstitutional as hell.
Click to expand...

Ok, I read through 1/2 of that totally biased article. If the law allows public and/or government employees to discriminate then it should not be allowed.

Gay people should have all the rights of other people. One of those rights is the choice to disassociate from anyone you wish for any reason. I do not understand how people have no issue with the government attempting to force people to do things they do not wish to do. It has never worked in the past yet people keep thinking the government has this type of power.
 
NLXSK1 said:
Ok, I read through 1/2 of that totally biased article. If the law allows public and/or government employees to discriminate then it should not be allowed.

Gay people should have all the rights of other people. One of those rights is the choice to disassociate from anyone you wish for any reason. I do not understand how people have no issue with the government attempting to force people to do things they do not wish to do. It has never worked in the past yet people keep thinking the government has this type of power.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I believe you and I have the same issue with this.
While I would serve anyone and everyone who were good people, I just can't stand the government telling me what to do with my private business.
From experience, we all know the way government and their laws work, sooner or later, we would be fighting to keep the same rights in our own homes.
 
NLXSK1 said:
Ok, I read through 1/2 of that totally biased article. If the law allows public and/or government employees to discriminate then it should not be allowed.

Gay people should have all the rights of other people. One of those rights is the choice to disassociate from anyone you wish for any reason. I do not understand how people have no issue with the government attempting to force people to do things they do not wish to do. It has never worked in the past yet people keep thinking the government has this type of power.
Click to expand...

I hate that I can agree with most of that, and, fuck, we're all fucking pissed off that the gummint takes away our "rights"....but, dude, take a hand up once in awhile.
 
jahbrudda said:
Agreed.

I believe you and I have the same issue with this.
While I would serve anyone and everyone who were good people, I just can't stand the government telling me what to do with my private business.
From experience, we all know the way government and their laws work, sooner or later, we would be fighting to keep the same rights in our own homes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have black clients, I have had gay clients and I might have gay clients now, it really isnt any of my concern or business. A good client is one that pays the bills consistently and does not complain about service, race, color, creed, religion, sexual status etc doesnt matter as I am a businessman.

If some person put a sign up saying that *insert group here* was not allowed I would think twice about shopping there. But at least it is their choice to be stupid.
 
NLXSK1 said:
Exactly. I have black clients, I have had gay clients and I might have gay clients now, it really isnt any of my concern or business. A good client is one that pays the bills consistently and does not complain about service, race, color, creed, religion, sexual status etc doesnt matter as I am a businessman.

If some person put a sign up saying that *insert group here* was not allowed I would think twice about shopping there. But at least it is their choice to be stupid.
Click to expand...

I guess my biggest fear is, where do they stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top