indiana

[deadgro]

Discrimination and freedom go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Someone will always feel discriminated against when another exercises a freedom. That's why its always a struggle trying to keep a delicate balance.

 

[UncleBuck]

some how I knew you would be in here espousing religious people being forced into doing things they do not believe in.
Seems we have the militant homosexual groups, like the ones you belong to suing people who do not believe like you do,
you should try reading the constitution.the homos have rights,,well so do the religious people,
sorry about your luck, go be a queer someplace else, cali I heard is real friendly to homos,
you all can stay there and suck and fuc all you want to,

wow.

your bigotry aside, i would not call offering money to vendors an act of "militant homosexuality".

 

[UncleBuck]

Businesses aren't confined to places that sell things.
Employers are businesses, landlords are businesses
private schools are businesses
insurance companies are businesses.
almost anything that accepts money is a business

good to see you back. hope the family is doing well.

 

[UncleBuck]

I honestly believe the backlash is ignorance.

you're entitled to your retarded opinion.

i honestly believe that denying goods and service to people because of their skin color or sexuality is ignorance. and bigotry. and not very civil.

 

[UncleBuck]

Discrimination and freedom go hand in hand.

tell that to blacks who couldn't even travel in the south before civil rights.

some freedom they had before civil rights.

 

[ttystikk]

Thanks for the link but i confess to not reading it yet , im trimming & glancing at RIU every so often , does it mean Mich is in the same boat as Indiana ?

Not quite, Michigan is its own little republican run fascist hellhole.

 

[ttystikk]

Discrimination and freedom go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Someone will always feel discriminated against when another exercises a freedom. That's why its always a struggle trying to keep a delicate balance.

This is somewhere between complete Bullshit and stark racing madness. Are you a republican?

 

[deadgro]

This is somewhere between complete Bullshit and stark racing madness. Are you a republican?

I don't vote based on party.

 

[TheHermit]

Discrimination and freedom go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Someone will always feel discriminated against when another exercises a freedom. That's why its always a struggle trying to keep a delicate balance.

This statement makes no sense.

 

[deadgro]

This statement makes no sense.

Then why don't we have complete freedom and no discrimination? Why doesn't any civilization?

 

[TheHermit]

I would say societies that have higher levels of discrimination have lower levels of freedom. Discrimination is the opposite of freedom if you are the one being discriminated against.

 

[deadgro]

I would say societies that have higher levels of discrimination have lower levels of freedom. Discrimination is the opposite of freedom if you are the one being discriminated against.

Yes, don't you see the correlation there?

Personally, I think all forms of religion are silly. But they are a protected class in the US, just as sexuality is. Legally speaking, both can suffer discrimination.

 

[schuylaar]

I thought so but just wanted to be sure , remember im the slow kid in the group

 

[Rob Roy]

so your gay son cannot enter the same stores you can, thus you both have equal rights. makes perfect sense if you're a retarded bigot.

You are failing to recognize that all people have the right to decline another human interaction, otherwise actions that force an interaction, such as rape would be okay.

So, in the sense of having equal rights, the bigoted shop keeper, my gay son and I all have the equal right to chose our associations, without having an interaction forced upon us.

In any human interaction, if one party prefers not to interact with you, would you force the interaction or peacefully leave that person alone?

I think you would rape them. I would not.

 

[Rob Roy]

Your wrong here bro , transacting business in the United States is not a privilege, its a right & its covered under many different laws including anti discrimination laws .



I too would like to hear that conversation , i had to explain to my children at an early age what a "Sand Nigger" was & why people called their mother & them that , it broke their hearts finding out people automatically hated them because they were different .

I cant imagine sitting my sons down & explaining why its ok they be singled out & humiliated, especially the part where me as a white man tell them i agree its ok they be disrespected cause they dont look like me , its an indefensible position .




Civil rights laws do hold the power to force businesses to operate within the system of laws governing said businesses .

Not only is denying service based on opion ,race , religion, appearance or sexuality morally & ethically wrong its legally wrong as well & covered under anti discrimination laws.


You do have a right to demand service & businesses do not have the right to refuse you service .

Sexual discrimination as described in the civil rights act of 1964 .

Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.

Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.
End Quote .

The new law in Indiana allowing businesses to deny service to a group goes directly against federal anti discrimination laws .

I agree with you on quite a few different issues but not on this issue , frankly i dont understand how anybody who isnt a bigot agrees with the law , I dont think your a bigot & am confused by your agreement with a law where the intent is clearly meant to take away rights of others .

Please explain how this law will be of any real life benifit to the community at large .

First off, I kind of like you, you seem like a pretty cool guy. So it's important to me that you know my point of view isn't formed in wishing to harm or deprive anybody. It's just the opposite, I want everybody to have the right to freely choose their human relations. Even if their choices aren't the ones that I'd make myself.

If one party wants to associate with somebody, but the other party does not....what is the proper thing to do? Force the interaction? Or leave the person alone and seek relations somewhere else? I would leave a person alone that doesn't want to associate with me, what would you do?

I don't favor government intervention in human relations. I think asking them to sort it out is laughable, since they are the source of much misery to begin with. I think people that wish to associate should always be able to, and those that don't want to should not be forced to.

I won't get into the laws, rights etc. right now, but I could, maybe later. Peace.

 

[OddBall1st]

so, they made it legal to deny goods and service to gays under the guise of "religious freedom".

since when was religious freedom contingent upon denial of gay rights?

You thought this was a first....??? That`s funny Buck.

 

[Rob Roy]

the law we are discussing makes it legally defensible to deny service to someone specifically because they are gay.

if someone refuses to sell someone goods and services on the specific basis that they are gay, who is the aggressor in that situation?

If a person refuses an interaction with another person, they are not being an aggressor. People that INSIST on an interaction, using threats of force are aggressors.



I bet you a pile of Wendy's cheeseburgers you can't answer the questions below in a clear and direct way....


Do women have the right to refuse an interaction with other people? .

Do people of all races and genders have the right to choose their associations and refuse an interaction with people they prefer not to interact with ?

 

[Rob Roy]

tell that to blacks who couldn't even travel in the south before civil rights.

some freedom they had before civil rights.

If a woman is free to chose a mate, doesn't she discriminate (make a clear distinction of preference) in her choice?

You've combined two dissimilar things into one. You do that alot, it's a common trait for a shitty debater, so you have lots of company.


A person that discriminates about their OWN choices is exercising freedom.

A person that makes choices FOR other people is rejecting freedom.

 

[ttystikk]

I don't vote based on party.

How about reality?

 

[Rob Roy]

How about reality?

The reality is both parties want to run your life for you rather than "allowing" you to.