Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

[skunkd0c]

when you engage in trade publicly you are bound by rules of government
government treats all people equal because all people are consumers

a negro with £500 to buy an eyephone is the same as a white man with £500 to buy an eyephone
if you wish apple.inc to be allowed not to sell eyephones to negros this is not practical and apple would lose money

soon a black market in negro eyphones would emerge with inflated eyephone prices to negros
this would not help apple or the government it would be cutting into their slice of the pie

so government treats all people equal anyone that holds the money can spend it anywhere equally
anything different to this would be taking this monopoly power away from government

 

[Rob Roy]

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.




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".

Except that is absurd. Since a "store" is inanimate. A person, the ower of said property is the one that should make that determination.


The owner of the store if they practice discrimination is obviously NOT billing themselves as open to business with anyone are they?

Your failing here is you take a pass when the coercive government renamed private property as a "public business".

If the public doesn't own the business, and the owner doesn't want to interact with some people how is it that the store is
"public" ?

You still didn't answer my question.

Who has the right to make another person serve them?

 

[Rob Roy]

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?

I side with the person that is not attempting to force an interaction. You side with the person that is willing to force an interaction.

There IS NO WAY AROUND THAT, despite your attempts to conflate things. You ENDORSE forced associations.

Do I endorse everything a person does or does not do with their body or property ? No. I endorse their right to do it as long as they aren't taking away the same right from you or me to use OUR property and our bodies as we see fit.

You've spent dozens of posts trying to recast my position....weak....very weak.

 

[UncleBuck]

Except that is absurd. Since a "store" is inanimate. A person, the ower of said property is the one that should make that determination.


The owner of the store if they practice discrimination is obviously NOT billing themselves as open to business with anyone are they?

Your failing here is you take a pass when the coercive government renamed private property as a "public business".

If the public doesn't own the business, and the owner doesn't want to interact with some people how is it that the store is
"public" ?

You still didn't answer my question.

Who has the right to make another person serve them?

i've answered your question twice, even going so far as to copy the first reply (in post 225) verbatim for you.

that you are illiterate is not my fault.

you are a racist coward who is too cowardly to answer my straghtforward question, so i will repeat it since it makes you so uncomfortable.

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]

i've answered your question twice, even going so far as to copy the first reply (in post 225) verbatim for you.

that you are illiterate is not my fault.

you are a racist coward who is too cowardly to answer my straghtforward question, so i will repeat it since it makes you so uncomfortable.

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.

Wendys called. They asked you not to write your phone number in feces on the wall of the stalls, something about a "property right violation"


Yes, finally I will answer your question. The answer is gerbil.

 

[UncleBuck]

I side with the person that is not attempting to force an interaction.

yes, you side with the racist business owner who wants to exclude others based on skin color. that has been established.

somehow you claim this is totally not racist though.

You side with the person that is willing to force an interaction.

i have said many times that the racist business owner is free to make his business a private club. it doesn't cost him a thing or harm him at all.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wendys called. They asked you not to write your phone number in feces on the wall of the stalls, something about a "property right violation"


Yes, finally I will answer your question. The answer is gerbil.

racist coward.

 

[greenlikemoney]

 

[Rob Roy]

yes, you side with the racist business owner who wants to exclude others based on skin color. that has been established.

somehow you claim this is totally not racist though.



i have said many times that the racist business owner is free to make his business a private club. it doesn't cost him a thing or harm him at all.

I didn't claim it wasn't racist dipshit. I said the owner of property, even a racist, has the right to control HIS property BUT not the property of others.

The hypothetical lady you accosted at Wendys could have taken you into the back of her minvan and screwed the daylites out of you, with your enormous bulbous wang she might have even liked it....so does that mean she has no right to refuse the association? No, it doesn't.

I claim that neither you or I or coercive government or black people or white people or gay gerbils have the right to force an association. You do though. Have you ever done the nasty in the back of a minivan ? You stud you.

 

[Rob Roy]

racist coward.

Floor shitting thief of property rights. - this is demonstrably true.

Your allegation however is not.

 

[NLXSK1]

yes, you side with the racist business owner who wants to exclude others based on skin color. that has been established.

somehow you claim this is totally not racist though.



i have said many times that the racist business owner is free to make his business a private club. it doesn't cost him a thing or harm him at all.

No. We side with business owners that want to exclude ANYONE based on ANYTHING....

 

[UncleBuck]

I didn't claim it wasn't racist dipshit. I said the owner of property, even a racist, has the right to control HIS property BUT not the property of others.

The hypothetical lady you accosted at Wendys could have taken you into the back of her minvan and screwed the daylites out of you, with your enormous bulbous wang she might have even liked it....so does that mean she has no right to refuse the association? No, it doesn't.

I claim that neither you or I or coercive government or black people or white people or gay gerbils have the right to force an association. You do though. Have you ever done the nasty in the back of a minivan ? You stud you.

how is it a forced association since the business owner can freely choose to be a private club or open to the public?

and you still haven't answered my straightforward, non-hypothetical question about whether denial of service caused harm.

 

[UncleBuck]

Floor shitting thief of property rights. - this is demonstrably true.

Your allegation however is not.

do you have the right to cause harm to others?

 

[UncleBuck]

No. We side with business owners that want to exclude ANYONE based on ANYTHING....

anything includes skin color.

so i am right to say that you side with the business owner who wants to deny service based on skin color.

yet somehow you claim that position is not racist.

 

[UncleBuck]

I didn't claim it wasn't racist dipshit.

so you side with the racists. but you personally are totally not racist somehow, you just take racist positions.

got it.

 

[Rob Roy]

yes, you side with the racist business owner who wants to exclude others based on skin color. that has been established.

somehow you claim this is totally not racist though.



i have said many times that the racist business owner is free to make his business a private club. it doesn't cost him a thing or harm him at all.

Of course it harms a person to put restrictions on how they will use their property and their body. It is wrong to invade another persons property and tell them how they will use it under threat of force, even if your name is NANNY.

You can burn a cross on your lawn UnKKKle BucKKK, but not on the lawn of your neighbor, why is that so difficult to understand?


So, who can force another person to serve them?

 

[UncleBuck]

Of course it harms a person to put restrictions on how they will use their property and their body.

how is the racist business owner harmed by making his business a private club then?\

So, who can force another person to serve them?

already answered in post 225, and copied verbatim for you in subsequent posts.

you are too much of a racist coward to answer my question though, so i will repeat it until you answer it:

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]

so you side with the racists. but you personally are totally not racist somehow, you just take racist positions.

got it.

Actually you don't get it. I don't think people should weigh 450 lbs and slurp down shit at Wendys*, but I think it's not up to me to dictate their behavior.

I don't think racist have any more or any less right to control their OWN property than a non racist. Conversely they have NO RIGHT to control the property or body of others, neither does a non racist.


Now after all this back and forth, don't you feel just a little silly ?





*not meant as a Wendys uncle Buck shit story

 

[Rob Roy]

how is the racist business owner harmed by making his business a private club then?\




already answered in post 225, and copied verbatim for you in subsequent posts.

you are too much of a racist coward to answer my question though, so i will repeat it until you answer it:

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.

He already owns the property doesn't he? Who has the right to decide how he will use it or what he will call it?


Who has the right to force others to serve them? (You've never answered this because you can't)

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually you don't get it. I don't think people should weigh 450 lbs and slurp down shit at Wendys*, but I think it's not up to me to dictate their behavior.

I don't think racist have any more or any less right to control their OWN property than a non racist. Conversely they have NO RIGHT to control the property or body of others, neither does a non racist.


Now after all this back and forth, don't you feel just a little silly ?





*not meant as a Wendys uncle Buck shit story

so let me see if i have this right.

your position is that you should have the right to exclude others based on skin color.

you admit that you hold this position and that this position is racist.

yet paradoxically, you yourself are not a racist, you just hold racist positions.

do i have that about right?