Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Mike Roach said:
OK Dumdum when I stand in front of the counter and ask for service at some Public place I'm not really dealing with an individual, I'm doing business with a company if the homophobic behind the counter doesn't want to serve me I'm not gonna force him, He can always quit, making the job available for more open minded person.
Click to expand...

What if the person that owns the private property that is sometimes used for business interactions is gay, and not homophobic should they be forced to use their body and their private property in ways they'd prefer not to?

A public place is different from a privately owned place isn't it? Why yes it is.

What is supposed to make it different is the ostensible owner in order to be the owner sets the rules of how the property will be used. So by extrapolation, you are agreeing with me that the real qualities of ownership has shifted hands from the person that is purported to own it to the entity that has set the rules of how the property will or will not be used.



Also, you didn't answer my question. There are a lot of people here that aren't very good at answering that question, maybe you can do a better job?

Please explain who has a right to force other people to serve them and where this "right" originates ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how is protecting everyone from discrimination based on skin color unequal?

you sound really bitter about civil rights still. now tell us all how much you are in support of civil rights.
Click to expand...


That's an easy one.


In the granting of the so-called "protection" you endorse and facilitate errors that rise to acts of initial aggression. First you can't protect a person from indifference, only from an act of initiated aggression.

Making a person serve you or associate with you under threat of force IS an act of initiated aggression. Your cognitive dissonance has a hard time with that one, so you ignore it and pretend it isn't there. You'd rather be the protector than the aggressor, but it ain't so.

If a person is not on YOUR property or harming your property or trying to make YOU serve them, then you have no moral basis to be protected or to force an association. When you do use threats to force an interaction, you BECOME the aggressor.....dipshit.

What you are calling "protection" is actually a lessening of the property right of the property owner.

The proper way to conduct associations is not by employing force, Mr. Rapist, it is by the actual consent of the two parties interacting. If all people regardless of color have the right to use their body and their property as they determine then equal protection is achieved.

The only right we have to interact with somebody is on a consensual basis or to REPEL an unwanted interaction.

You use the word protection inaccurately. Protection is not an act that arises from an offensive act, where people are forced to serve or associate with others, protection arises from a defensive act.


So ....Cognitive Dissonance boy...who has the right to threaten force to make others serve them?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
Maybe others can simply accept/respect the beliefs of their fellow man and not impose upon them. There is more than one place to hold a wedding. Pretty simple solution, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Solution to the wrong problem. Access to a wedding venue wasn't the problem. The problem is that people refuse to agree with the homosexual agenda. This can not be allowed.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Nutes and Nugs said:
LMAO
YES!
I was following hispanics around the supermarket just yesterday.

You would not believe the fancy proteins, drinks and deserts they purchased with food stamps.
Click to expand...
I saw two women buy over $500 of meat at a store with food stamps. Curious, I followed them to a church, where they were selling barbeque from a stand set up in the parking lot. They have been running that stand every Friday and Saturday for at least a year, so they must have permission from the church. No one is allowed to get $2000 a month in food stamps, so they must be trafficking in food stamps. This also may be a direct subsidy of a church by the Federal government. The advent of EBT cards terminated the "business". On a side note, that particular store, a Winn-Dixie, was closed and abandoned due to extremely high theft rates. They had over $80,000 in shopping carts stolen alone.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
So, essentially, it's illegal to treat someone differently due to disliking them... as long as whatever you dislike, is not within that person's capacity to change.

Therefore, everything that is a person's choice, is fair game?

If you choose something i dislike for any reason, i'm allowed to discriminate against you?
Click to expand...
yes

In the name of equality
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
okay... but doesn't that allow discriminating people to manipulate the choices of others?
Click to expand...
Yes, as long as you are discriminating for reasons 1-11,896,456. If you are discriminating against those we deem need protection then no.

I was my wife's second husband. Neither of us were religious but she wanted to get married in a church because her first wedding was a courthouse affair. The first church we called wouldn't let us use them because they didn't believe in divorce. In their eyes she was still married to her first husband and would be for life.

We went to a different church. We didn't sue, we didn't contact a news agency, we simply said well fuck, if they don't want our money, someone else will. Besides, unlike this gay couple, we didn't have any laws backing us up in our pursuit to FORCE religion to our will.

In the name of equality though....
 
H.M. Murdoch

H.M. Murdoch

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
another bigot chimes in to prove that only bigots refer to "the homosexual agenda" (thooooo thcawy!)

the rest of us just call it equal rights.
Click to expand...
No, no, we don't...we call it sick. Face it Buck, if the TRUTH be told, the VAST MAJORITY of male heterosexuals would say, with NO hesitation, that the thought of sticking their finger, dick, or tongue up another man's asshole makes them sick to their stomach...another man's shit on your tongue, dick, or finger? Would you relish that Buck?

Again, I'm just saying if the TRUTH be told. Without fear of political reprocussion, which I am not. But many are, I know.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
H.M. Murdoch said:
...the thought of sticking their finger, dick, or tongue up another man's asshole makes them sick to their stomach...another man's shit on your tongue, dick, or finger? Would you relish that Buck?
Click to expand...
it's not surprising at all that a homophobe is indulging himself in vivid thoughts of male on male gay sexual activity.

in fact, the science just dictates that these thoughts are floating around in your noggin quite a bit.
 
H.M. Murdoch

H.M. Murdoch

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's not surprising at all that a homophobe is indulging himself in vivid thoughts of male on male gay sexual activity.

in fact, the science just dictates that these thoughts are floating around in your noggin quite a bit.
Click to expand...
You failed to answer my assertion that the vast majority of hetero (i.e. normal) males would agree with me, in their heart of hearts.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
H.M. Murdoch said:
You failed to answer my assertion that the vast majority of hetero (i.e. normal) males would agree with me, in their heart of hearts.
Click to expand...
i don't think the vast majority of heterosexual men even think about male on male gay sex as vividly or often as you clearly do.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Are you finally ready to admit that you support different laws for different sections of the population? Or are you still denying they exist while you defend them?
Click to expand...
i support laws that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, and the like.

you do not.

you think blacks should have just gone on dealing with denial of service because otherwise people like you and desert dude might have spit in their food.

that's the sad truth of this debate. i support civil rights, you do not.
 
AlecTheGardener

AlecTheGardener

Well-Known Member
H.M. Murdoch said:
No, no, we don't...we call it sick. Face it Buck, if the TRUTH be told, the VAST MAJORITY of male heterosexuals would say, with NO hesitation, that the thought of sticking their finger, dick, or tongue up another man's asshole makes them sick to their stomach...another man's shit on your tongue, dick, or finger? Would you relish that Buck?

Again, I'm just saying if the TRUTH be told. Without fear of political reprocussion, which I am not. But many are, I know.
Click to expand...
Correct, you have successfully described the EXACT demographic that doesn't participate in any of those activities, of course they wouldn't PERFER a finger up their butt.

Kinda like this:

Face it, the vast majority of Orthodox Jews who follow Shabbat would say, with no hesitation, that the thought of sticking a pork tenderloin in their mouth, or to tongue a pork chop would be absolutely sickening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top