indiana

[Padawanbater2]

Do you oppose slavery? I do. All people should be free shouldn't they?

It’s the involuntary nature of the servitude that makes it slavery. Forcing someone to bake you a cake against her will is no different, even if you offer to pay for it.

Nobody forced the woman to become a baker, she chose that all on her own fully aware of the fact that she would likely have to bake for people she didn't always agree with, that's the nature of running a business

 

[UncleBuck]

all people have the right to decline another human interaction

public store owners do not have a right to decline an interaction based on skin color or sexuality.

ya see, we already tried your dream of bigotry, spaMBLA. it harmed people, so we outlawed it.

harming others is a right no one possesses.

rape ...rape them.

you are calling your gay son a rapist for trying to offer money to businesses who are bigoted.

you offer no condemnation for the hostile, non-peaceful bigots, but you call your own son a rapist for peacefully offering them money.

 

[UncleBuck]

my point of view isn't formed in wishing to harm or deprive anybody.

yet that's exactly what you spam for daily, you want to allow racists and bigots to harm and deprive others, including your gay son.

why are you such a bigot?

 

[see4]

Really? So you are okay with an uninvolved third party making choices about how two individuals will interact? How does that protect the freedom of both individuals to chose their own path?

A society that uses force to make people associate or prevent those that wish to associate doesn't seem based in consent does it?

I know you have a really hard time grasping this concept, but let me try to break it down for you in dumb dumb terms, by use of an example.

Say that your gay son goes to a store that is open to the public and is immediately forcibly removed simply because of his sexual preference. You are basically defending the store who kicked your gay son, rather than your son. I understand that your argument is that your gay sword swallowing son, assuming he does the sword swallowing act in local carnivals, has the right to not go to that store at all, which currently he has that same right. But what I don't understand is that you willfully ignore the fact that these discriminatory ways were once acceptable and had a profoundly negative impact on society for many years. I don't understand why you want that again? The only logical conclusion is that you are a racist bigot who hates his son.

Family first man. Set aside your utter contempt for society and think about your family and gay son. I should ask, does he swallow swords? You and your family seem like a circus act to me.

 

[UncleBuck]

If a person refuses an interaction with another person, they are not being an aggressor.

so then what is the least aggressive, most peaceful way to kick your gay son out of a store because he is gay?

 

[UncleBuck]

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

a person who discriminates against their customers based on race, as you want to allow, is a racist.

if they do it based on sexuality, as you want to allow, they are a bigot.

you are both, and a possible pedophile to boot.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nobody forced the woman to become a baker, she chose that all on her own fully aware of the fact that she would likely have to bake for people she didn't always agree with, that's the nature of running a business

No, that's the nature of redefining property that was once controlled by the owner as controlled by persons that are not the owner.



Also, I hope you understand I am not advocating gender preference discrimination. I thinks its silly. I do think though that forcing a person to serve somebody is not the best way to ensure peace. Nor is removing a persons choice to interact or not interact with others a good thing.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who has the right to force an unwilling person to serve them?

Every American has the right to equal protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and gender. A person refusing goods/services based on race, color, religion, sex or gender is breaking the law. So this "unwilling person" in your example, by law, has to serve them. They have the right vacate the sales business if they have a problem with that.

 

[UncleBuck]

it is wrong for them to enforce forced integration.

forced integration?

you have to be forced to interact with minorities?

the only people that call it "forced integration" are really racists like you.

 

[Grandpapy]

Who has the right to force an unwilling person to serve them?

Society

 

[UncleBuck]

So you think using force against a person that remains on their property and would prefer not to interact with you is okay?

Why is that?

possibly because what you describe as "indifference" and "remaining on their property" is more accurately described as "denying service to people based on their skin color" and being "hostile and racist" and "causing harm to others".

learn what words mean you racist.

 

[UncleBuck]

There's more than one person involved that have rights. Doesn't any person have a right to not interact with another person if they chose?

no, not public store owners, and not on the basis of skin color and sexuality.

we tried that and it harmed people.

no one has the right to harm people you dumb racist.

 

[Rob Roy]

so then what is the least aggressive, most peaceful way to kick your gay son out of a store because he is gay?

Wendys called and said they were losing business. They weren't sure if it was due to their bigotry or the unclean bathroom facilities.

Too late, we went to McDonalds where they don't discriminate. Have a nice day.

 

[see4]

Yep, boys and girls, stick a fork in him. He's done.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, not public store owners, and not on the basis of skin color and sexuality.

we tried that and it harmed people.

no one has the right to harm people you dumb racist fuck.

Using force to make people interact is not a good policy. In fact many (most) of the worlds problems can be traced to that policy.

Maybe its time to try something else, like peaceful and voluntary consensual interactions.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you approve of initiating force

peacefully handing money to people is not "initiating force".

against a person remaining on their property

AKA refusing service to blacks and gays.

Why is the reason they prefer not to interact relevant?

because it causes harm.

Shouldn't people be free to interact on a consensual basis

they are, it's called a private club.

forced integration

yes, we know. you are forced. you wouldn't integrate otherwise.

Using force in a non defensive way is never the answer.

so refusing service to gays and blacks is defensive force then?

LOL.

you are a racist loser.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yep, boys and girls, stick a fork in him. He's done.

????

 

[Rob Roy]

peacefully handing money to people is not "initiating force".



AKA refusing service to blacks and gays.



because it causes harm.



they are, it's called a private club.



yes, we know. you are forced. you wouldn't integrate otherwise.



so refusing service to gays and blacks is defensive force then?

LOL.

you are a racist loser.

If a person doesn't want to associate with you and you insist on the interaction, that seems like a shitty thing to do...doo doo face.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, that's the nature of redefining property that was once controlled by the owner

the owner still controls the property, private club or public business is still their decision you rancid accumulation of equine dung.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wendys called and said they were losing business. They weren't sure if it was due to their bigotry or the unclean bathroom facilities.

Too late, we went to McDonalds where they don't discriminate. Have a nice day.

so then what is the least aggressive, most peaceful way to kick your gay son out of a store because he is gay?