indiana

[UncleBuck]

Equal rights means the equal ability to make choices about our own things, not the ability to force our choices on others.

Did you suck down a second bottle of dolt pills?

so your son is not allowed in stores because he is gay, and you are allowed in those stores because you are not gay, thus you both have equal rights?

 

[UncleBuck]

Unemployment is 4%, 80% white, median income is $85k.

You can't afford to move? Why support discrimination with your taxes?

stellar start, echelon.

maybe move onto your holocaust denial now.

 

[Rob Roy]

so if a business refused to serve your son because he is gay, you would tell your son that he just has to accept that his sexual orientation makes him less deserving of respect and equal rights, and that he should respect the bigot like you do?

No I would not tell him he should respect a bigot. I would tell him, he has no right to force anybody to interact with him, bigot, floor shitter or otherwise. He should respect other people have the right to shit on their own floors, but not on his floor or a floor at Wendys.

 

[deadgro]

stellar start, echelon.

maybe move onto your holocaust denial now.

No measure has even been discussed by the NJ legislature to redact the law. All you'd have to do is request a discussion. Is indifference better than support?

 

[UncleBuck]

No I would not tell him he should respect a bigot. I would tell him, he has no right to force anybody to interact with him.

so even though you respect that bigot's choice to prohibit your gay son from entering because he is gay, you would tell your gay son not to respect the bigot, and that because he is gay, he should have less competitors to choose from, face higher prices, and barriers to entry.

all because your gay son is gay.

did i just about get that right?

 

[Rob Roy]

so your son is not allowed in stores because he is gay, and you are allowed in those stores because you are not gay, thus you both have equal rights?

When you say allowed, does that you mean you accept that for an interaction to be consensual both parties must agree to it or allow it?

If a person wouldn't serve my son, I wouldn't interact with them, what's your point?


You assume that an interaction with somebody that prefers not to is somehow a right of another to create? How does that happen?

 

[Rob Roy]

so even though you respect that bigot's choice to prohibit your gay son from entering because he is gay, you would tell your gay son not to respect the bigot, and that because he is gay, he should have less competitors to choose from, face higher prices, and barriers to entry.

all because your gay son is gay.

did i just about get that right?

No, I'd say he shouldn't initiate force by making anothers choices for them.

Serious question... Why do you think a person that doesn't own property can somehow dictate the use of it to the owner? What creates that right to initiate force?

 

[UncleBuck]

When you say allowed, does that you mean you accept that for an interaction to be consensual both parties must agree to it or allow it?

when i say allowed, i mean whether or not your gay son may enter a store based on his sexuality.

If a person wouldn't serve my son, I wouldn't interact with them, what's your point?

but you would tell your gay son that you respect that bigot's choice to not allow your gay son into the store because he is gay?

that's honestly sad.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, I'd say he shouldn't initiate force by making anothers choices for them.

so if your son tried to give someone money in exchange for ice cream in a peaceful manner, and the store owner refused to sell him ice cream because he is gay, you would call your son an "aggressor" and tell him to stop "initiating force" and using "rapist tactics" and making the store owner a "slave"?

and then you would tell him that he needs to respect the bigot's decision not to serve your gay son because he is gay?

 

[desert dude]

so he deeply admires (respects) the choice to refuse service to gays and blacks then?

that's not any better. that might even be worse.

propaganda. shit flinging. maybe some of your prog buddies are fooled by it. nobody with normal reading comprehension is.

 

[Rob Roy]

so if your son tried to give someone money in exchange for ice cream in a peaceful manner, and the store owner refused to sell him ice cream because he is gay, you would call your son an "aggressor" and tell him to stop "initiating force" and using "rapist tactics" and making the store owner a "slave"?

and then you would tell him that he needs to respect the bigot's decision not to serve your gay son because he is gay?

If you insist on interacting with somebody and that person would prefer not to, what would you do?

Rape them ? Shit on their floor and then rape them?

 

[UncleBuck]

propaganda. shit flinging. maybe some of your prog buddies are fooled by it. nobody with normal reading comprehension is.

look at his comment. he respects (deeply admires) the bigot's choice to refuse service to blacks and gays.

I do respect a bigots right to chose their interactions

remember last time you tried to use that word, propaganda?

i said race was a protected class and you called it 'lies, propaganda' and much more.

your idiocy is not my problem, white supremacist.

this is why you don;t debate with me, it's because you are fucking stupid and you can't.

 

[UncleBuck]

If you insist on interacting with somebody and that person would prefer not to, what would you do?

if someone refused to sell me goods and services because of my skin color or sexual orientation, i would lobby for a civil rights law so that i could enjoy equal rights.

you would tell your gay son that because he is gay, he must endure reduced competition, higher prices, and barriers to entry, and that he must respect the bigot's decision.

 

[UncleBuck]

"sorry, son. because you suck dick in the privacy of your own bedroom, this bank is allowed to charge you a higher interest rate on your home loan. you need to respect that" - rob roy

 

[deadgro]

No measure has even been discussed by the NJ legislature to redact the law. All you'd have to do is request a discussion. Is indifference better than support?

Why do you choose to fund discrimination @UncleBuck ?

 

[Rob Roy]

so your son is not allowed in stores because he is gay, and you are allowed in those stores because you are not gay, thus you both have equal rights?

Yes, we both have equal rights.

We are both equal in the sense that neither of us has the right to force a business person or any other person to interact with us, especially on their own property.

We also are both equal in that we, as individuals, have the right to be free from others forcing us to interact with them if we chose not to.

Those rights are reciprocal and apply to all other people.regardless of gender or race.

Forced human interactions are wrong, do you agree or disagree with that?



You've also call something a right when it isn't a right. None of us have the right to access another person or trade with them, absent that other persons consent. Otherwise it isn't trade. Trade rests on agreement between parties, not edicts by one of the parties.

You've confuse a granted privilege with a right. To exercise a right you don't need anyone else to approve or disapprove. To exercise a privilege, you must first be granted that privilege.

To have the privilege of another human interaction, first requires the consent of the another human being.

If a bigot says he will interact with me, but not my son, he is consenting to an interaction, with me, granting me a privilege to interact with him. I am free not to interact with him though. Neither of us has the right to force this interaction. We both have the right to refuse the interaction.

If a bigot says he will not interact with my son, where would my son get the right to force an interaction, since forcing human interactions is wrong?

I realize in order for you to understand what I am saying, your comprehension skills and logic would need to rise several notches.

Also, you never answer any questions. That means you're losing....again.

 

[schuylaar]

You kinda lost me here , my group & im supporting ?

At no time have i said i support organized religion or the bombing of clinics .

Seriously confused here ?

it's rhetorical questioning..i was agreeing with you.

 

[schuylaar]

Yes, we both have equal rights.

We are both equal in the sense that neither of us has the right to force a business person or any other person to interact with us, especially on their own property.

We also are both equal in that we, as individuals, have the right to be free from others forcing us to interact with them if we chose not to.

Those rights are reciprocal and apply to all other people.regardless of gender or race.

Forced human interactions are wrong, do you agree or disagree with that?



You've also call something a right when it isn't a right. None of us have the right to access another person or trade with them, absent that other persons consent. Otherwise it isn't trade. Trade rests on agreement between parties, not edicts by one of the parties.

You've confuse a granted privilege with a right. To exercise a right you don't need anyone else to approve or disapprove. To exercise a privilege, you must first be granted that privilege.

To have the privilege of another human interaction, first requires the consent of the another human being.

If a bigot says he will interact with me, but not my son, he is consenting to an interaction, with me, granting me a privilege to interact with him. I am free not to interact with him though. Neither of us has the right to force this interaction. We both have the right to refuse the interaction.

If a bigot says he will not interact with my son, where would my son get the right to force an interaction, since forcing human interactions is wrong?

I realize in order for you to understand what I am saying, your comprehension skills and logic would need to rise several notches.

Also, you never answer any questions. That means you're losing....again.

i agree with the above statement.

 

[Rob Roy]

if someone refused to sell me goods and services because of my skin color or sexual orientation, i would lobby for a civil rights law so that i could enjoy equal rights.

you would tell your gay son that because he is gay, he must endure reduced competition, higher prices, and barriers to entry, and that he must respect the bigot's decision.

If somebody refuses to interact with you and you threaten them with force, you are "respecting" rapist tactics Mr. Ted Bundy.

A service, in order to be a service and not a uni-lateral edict, requires mutual and consensual agreement of all of the involved parties, not just one party to the interaction or an uninvolved third party.

Can you refute that? No. You can't.

If someone refused to interact with me, I'd leave them alone. I might not like their reasons, but that doesn't give me any right to insist on an interaction with them on their property does it?

You would burst into their house, shit on their floor and force them to transact with you on terms you've set. That's not very nice and frankly violates their rights.

Also, you don't know the difference between a right and privilege. You have no right to stick your dick in somebody else, unless they grant you that privilege. If it were your right, their consent wouldn't be required.

Carried out to all other human interactions, actual consent can only be granted by the individual and not by others presuming to hold that power to force a non consensual interaction.

You are a person that thinks others have no right to chose their interactions if their choices don't jive with yours. You are a prohibitionist. That is clear. You can conflate all you want, but at the end of the day, you don't respect other peoples right to refuse an interaction. Rapists do that too.

 

[schuylaar]

i agree with the principle that you have the right to pick and choose who you do business with..i did..but i didn't have a sign on my car saying i'm not serving any pain in the asses/problematic accounts..attorneys, doctors, CPA's and IT/engineers..i just never called upon them again..not pursuing their business..as far as i'm concerned..everybody's cash is the same green, spends the same way that goes for LGBT, like i said earlier, they are THE single most demographic i prefer to work with. they are a business persons dream..lot's of cash and they buy everything, they don't even ask for discounts..full boat. that's actually one of my business ideas is serving the wilton manors/victoria park area of ft. lauderdale..having a pet funerary.