Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

[UncleBuck]

you keep trying to spin your championing the abuse of another person and their property into something good.

nope, that's you.

you are trying to turn the denial of service to blacks (abuse of another person) into FREEDOM! (something good).

the reality is that you do not support freedom, you support racism and segregation.

You support a non owner of property using force to make another person serve them against their will.

against their will? but you keep saying you would voluntarily serve blacks. now it is against your will?

You support laws that require a person to associate with a person they'd rather not and you also support laws that require a person to use their body in ways they'd prefer not to.

so you'd rather not serve blacks and you'd prefer not to serve blacks? again, that contradicts what you keep saying when you try to pardon your stance as totally not racist.

You also never answer questions like, "who has the right to make another person serve them" ?

i've answered that many times. if a store bills themselves as open to the public, then any member of the public may "make" that store owner serve them.

businesses see this scenario as a good thing, not as an instance of being "enslaved".

I say nobody has that right, because if somebody is forced to serve another person, in that instance at least, they are enslaved.

running a business, being enslaved, totally the same thing if you are raping the english language like you do, bobbyboy.

The reason why you can't answer those questions

i've repeatedly answered your questions. it is you who runs like a little bitch from questions.

for example, did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

Decent people don't force themselves onto other peoples property or ask the government to make others serve them.

so are you calling black people "indecent" for marching for equal rights and to end segregation?

Decent people don't tell other people how to live their life, if they don't agree, they simply avoid each other rather than forcing an interaction.

decent people do not argue endlessly for the right to exclude others based on race, like you do.

get fucked, racist.

 

[Rob Roy]

nope, that's you.

you are trying to turn the denial of service to blacks (abuse of another person) into FREEDOM! (something good).

the reality is that you do not support freedom, you support racism and segregation.



against their will? but you keep saying you would voluntarily serve blacks. now it is against your will?



so you'd rather not serve blacks and you'd prefer not to serve blacks? again, that contradicts what you keep saying when you try to pardon your stance as totally not racist.



i've answered that many times. if a store bills themselves as open to the public, then any member of the public may "make" that store owner serve them.

businesses see this scenario as a good thing, not as an instance of being "enslaved".



running a business, being enslaved, totally the same thing if you are raping the english language like you do, bobbyboy.



i've repeatedly answered your questions. it is you who runs like a little bitch from questions.

for example, did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.



so are you calling black people "indecent" for marching for equal rights and to end segregation?



decent people do not argue endlessly for the right to exclude others based on race, like you do.

get fucked, racist.

I do not support forced segregation or forced integration. I oppose the use of force in human interactions. People that want to associate or not associate are free to do so in my world, it's not my business to intervene in other peoples lives or dictate the use of property that is not mine.

I don't think gay people or white people or black people have the right to make others associate with them. It appears that you think some people have this right, to force an association, yet you can't say why can you?


Also I've said many times IF I owned a business, I'd not discriminate based on race, which is my right as the property owner.



You have to make a racist strawman in order to respond to me....sad, very sad clown shoes.


All people have the right to self determine their actions, no people have the right to determine other peoples actions unless it is to repel an act of aggression against them or their property.

How does a person using their property in ways they might like, but you don't like rise to an act of aggression if the property owner is seeking to avoid an interaction? Wouldn't the person that is INSISTING ON THE INTERACTION, BE THE AGGRESSOR !???? Why, yes they would be....numbskull.

Equal rights and the end of segregation are not the same thing. Equal rights would mean that all people have the right to decide if they will interact with others and NO PEOPLE will force interactions or integration or segregation. If some people CAN force an interaction, it would appear there is an inequality.

So who has the right to make another person serve them ? Do you ? Do I ?



When you say "get fucked racist" to me what you are really saying is, I cannot defend my argument with logic, so I'll label you a racist and pound the table. That's not a good way to defend your position, by miscasting the other persons position is it?

I think racism is stupid, but I think you can't correct "stupid" by applying force to people that aren't applying force to you. You think different than that....rapist.

 

[UncleBuck]

forced integration

you never answered my question because you are a racist coward, but that much is already clear by your use of the above phrase.

 

[Rob Roy]

you never answered my question because you are a racist coward, but that much is already clear by your use of the above phrase.

No, I am not a coward or a racist. ....and I've never shit on somebodies floor either.


If a person doesn't want to associate with you, do you think using force against them is acceptable to make the interaction happen? How does that work ? When is it okay and not okay to use rapist tactics?

 

[UncleBuck]

No, I am not a coward or a racist. ....and I've never shit on somebodies floor either.


If a person doesn't want to associate with you, do you think using force against them is acceptable to make the interaction happen? How does that work ? When is it okay and not okay to use rapist tactics?

you never answered my question because you are a racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

 

[Rob Roy]

you never answered my question because you are a racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

Nobody, black, white, floor shitter, gerbil lover or internet troll should be denied the right to make business transactions with other WILLING participants.

Nobody should force a business transaction on another person unless it is to enforce a previously made consensual agreement.

Denying a person an association with you is your right. That is if you truly own yourself.

Denying a person an association with another person when they both want to associate is not your right. Since none of us should own others.


So, who has the right to force others to serve them.....cupcake?

 

[UncleBuck]

Denying a person an association with you is your right. That is if you truly own yourself.

and you have that right. it's called a private club.

So, who has the right to force others to serve them.....cupcake?

already answered that one.

you still have not answered my question, racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

 

[Rob Roy]

and you have that right. it's called a private club.



already answered that one.

you still have not answered my question, racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

No. It's called private property. Your most intimate property is your body, but it is not all that a person can own.

A private club, or a privately owned business is all property that somebody else owns. If you don't own it and I don't own it....where oh where do we or anyone else get the right to make others use it in ways we insist that they use it?



You've never answered my question and if you had better ability to comprehend you'd see that I just answered your absurd question a post or two ago.

Your question rests on the assumption that a person BY NOT ASSOCIATING WITH YOU, is somehow initiating aggression. You are absurd.



Let's use an Uncle Buck absurd example of denial of service.

Buck - "Hey bitch, I'm horny and you have a vagina. Here's some money, now fuck me."

Lady at Wendy's trying to avoid eye contact with the weird guy - "Get lost douche bag and what's that smell?"

Buck - "What, you think you can deny this association? Says who, you should have started a private club if you think you can determine the use of your own body.....my wife is Jewish y'know.......you, you RACIST!!!

 

[UncleBuck]

No. It's called private property. Your most intimate property is your body, but it is not all that a person can own.

A private club, or a privately owned business is all property that somebody else owns. If you don't own it and I don't own it....where oh where do we or anyone else get the right to make others use it in ways we insist that they use it?



You've never answered my question and if you had better ability to comprehend you'd see that I just answered your absurd question a post or two ago.

Your question rests on the assumption that a person BY NOT ASSOCIATING WITH YOU, is somehow initiating aggression. You are absurd.



Let's use an Uncle Buck absurd example of denial of service.

Buck - "Hey bitch, I'm horny and you have a vagina. Here's some money, now fuck me."

Lady at Wendy's trying to avoid eye contact with the weird guy - "Get lost douche bag and what's that smell?"

Buck - "What, you think you can deny this association? Says who, you should have started a private club if you think you can determine the use of your own body.....my wife is Jewish y'know.......you, you RACIST!!!

you're avoiding answering my straightforward question at all costs and diving further into the abyss of your own stupidity.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

 

[Rob Roy]

you're avoiding answering my straightforward question at all costs and diving further into the abyss of your own stupidity.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

Post 230....Meathead.



If stupid were weed, you'd be Jack Herer. Except stupid isn't weed.


You're trying to get me to defend a position that I don't hold and refusing to answer my question, you are lame, so lame.



Do you think it is acceptable to force another person to serve you ?

 

[skunkd0c]

The money thing in your example Rob
when folk trade if they are using government issued currency then they are bound by trade laws
laws can be included in this trade with government currency to stop denial of service

they currency is more important than the individual ?

if a black man is holding a bank note the bank note should have the same value as if a white man was holding the note ?
if this note can't be exchanged for goods because a blackman is holding the note this would be rather silly ?

if you start your own society and get your own currency you can do what you like ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Post 230....Meathead.



If stupid were weed, you'd be Jack Herer. Except stupid isn't weed.


You're trying to get me to defend a position that I don't hold and refusing to answer my question, you are lame, so lame.



Do you think it is acceptable to force another person to serve you ?

post 230 does not say anything about whether the denial of service to blacks caused harm, and i have already answered your question.

so i will repeat my question in the hopes that you will answer it, but you won't since you are a racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

 

[Rob Roy]

The money thing in your example Rob
when folk trade if they are using government issued currency then they are bound by trade laws
laws can be included in this trade with government currency to stop denial of service

they currency is more important than the individual ?

if a black man is holding a bank note the bank note should have the same value as if a white man was holding the note ?
if this note can't be exchanged for goods because a blackman is holding the note this would be rather silly ?

if you start your own society and get your own currency you can do what you like ?

The exchange of whatever is used as the currency, $$$, silver, gold or a bevy of gerbil pelts is not the point.

The point is an exchange to be moral and just must have the consent of both parties and should NOT involve the application of offensive force. If it does involve the use of offensive force, then there is no equality is there?

 

[UncleBuck]

The exchange of whatever is used as the currency, $$$, silver, gold or a bevy of gerbil pelts is not the point.

The point is an exchange to be moral and just must have the consent of both parties and should NOT involve the application of offensive force. If it does involve the use of offensive force, then there is no equality is there?

how is a black person giving money to a business owner in exchange for the goods and service they are offering an example of "offensive force"?

those of us who are not racist and who do not defend denial of service based on skin color describe that "offensive force" as "how to run a business".

 

[Rob Roy]

post 230 does not say anything about whether the denial of service to blacks caused harm, and i have already answered your question.

so i will repeat my question in the hopes that you will answer it, but you won't since you are a racist coward.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

In your hypothetical situation, were both parties consenting to the interaction absent any coercion or threats of force ?



Also you have not answered my question, because you are can't.

 

[Rob Roy]

how is a black person giving money to a business owner in exchange for the goods and service they are offering an example of "offensive force"?

those of us who are not racist and who do not defend denial of service based on skin color describe that "offensive force" as "how to run a business".

That's a fair question meathead. Too bad you can't answer my question.

For an exchange to be valid and legitimate the persons involved in the exchange must both be willing participants. If one person is not a willing participant, then the exchange is not a consensual exchange and becomes an Uncle Buck weirdo offer to a lady at Wendys.

 

[UncleBuck]

In your hypothetical situation, were both parties consenting to the interaction absent any coercion or threats of force ?

i am not asking about any hypothetical scenario. i am asking you if the denial of service to blacks that happened for decades caused any harm.

allow me to repeat my non-hypothetical question, which requires only a yes or no response:

did denial of service to blacks cause harm in the form of barriers to entry, decreased competition, and higher prices?

please get back to me on that one, cupcake.

Also you have not answered my question, because you are can't.

already answered your question in post 225, you lying racist coward.

learn to read.

i will repost my answer verbatim so you don't exhaust what diminutive mental faculties you have.

if a store bills themselves as open to the public, then any member of the public may "make" that store owner serve them.

businesses see this scenario as a good thing, not as an instance of being "enslaved".

 

[skunkd0c]

The exchange of whatever is used as the currency, $$$, silver, gold or a bevy of gerbil pelts is not the point.

The point is an exchange to be moral and just must have the consent of both parties and should NOT involve the application of offensive force. If it does involve the use of offensive force, then there is no equality is there?

when folk trade or undertake work that results in money government steps in to take its slice
moral arguments ?

an individual would be free not to trade with any person on any ground
soon groups would form , all different groups would impose sanctions against each other
this would give these groups a form of trade power, none of this suits government

people are all consumers you cant start letting them pick and choose who they trade with

 

[Rob Roy]

when folk trade or undertake work that results in money government steps in to take its slice
moral arguments ?

an individual would be free not to trade with any person on any ground
soon groups would form , all different groups would impose sanctions against each other
this would give these groups a form of trade power, none of this suits government

people are all consumers you cant start letting them pick and choose who they trade with

Actually I can let people chose their interactions and I do. The alternative is to endorse forced interactions, which I don't.

 

[UncleBuck]

For an exchange to be valid and legitimate the persons involved in the exchange must both be willing participants.

oh, ok. i see.

you see the "offensive force" in the form of a black person wanting to be treated like any other customer.

whereas i see the "offensive force" in the form of the racist business owner excluding paying customers on the basis of skin color.

it's a difference in values and morals, i suppose.

why does this racist business owner not open a private club, as is his right? it doesn't cost the racist business owner anything extra to do that, or harm him in any way.

whereas the utopia you envision (which played out in the south before civil rights) indeed did cause a lot of harm to blacks in the form of higher prices, reduced competition, barriers to entry (literally) and more.

so why do you side with the racist business owner at the expense of the black paying customer?