indiana

[TBoneJack]

here he describes paying a child for sex as a voluntary act.

here he argues that just because pedophilia is bad doesn't make it not consensual.

here he describes paying a child for sex as a voluntary act.

here he argues that just because pedophilia is bad doesn't make it not consensual.

Well I'd like to give him a chance to speak up in his own defense, if he chooses.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well I'd like to give him a chance to speak up in his own defense, if he chooses.

when he states that just because it is reprehensible doesn't mean it wasn't consensual, that is him speaking up in his own defense.

you are quick to get angry with me, but you completely dismiss all the racists and pedophile apologists on this forum, you even befriend those types.

you are a fucking loser, murdoch. 9 bans should have given you a hint already.

 

[Padawanbater2]

He thinks threats of violence can



News flash...the government very much is part of the control of food production.

Equal protection of property means the owner would be protected from other people declaring the use of his property. This would apply to any person owning property regardless of race or gender.

Equal protection of your body means other people don't declare how you will use your OWN body.

The gov. regulates the food industry, it doesn't control what restaurant owners put on their menus or the general workings of the business

Civil rights trump property rights (which is a moot point because property owners do not have the right to discriminate)

 

[Rob Roy]

only the store owner can decide to make his store public or private you fucking racist twat.

Oh dear Poopy Pants you are forgetting the usurpation of what once private property being converted into something else by your beloved nanny state aren't you?

 

[Rob Roy]

The gov. regulates the food industry, it doesn't control what restaurant owners put on their menus or the general workings of the business

Civil rights trump property rights (which is a moot point because property owners do not have the right to discriminate)

Your first statement is so far off, I'll leave it alone to save you from yourself.

Do you think people have a kind of property right in themselves, in that they should be able to control their own body and other people shouldn't control them?

 

[TBoneJack]

when he states that just because it is reprehensible doesn't mean it wasn't consensual, that is him speaking up in his own defense.

you are quick to get angry with me, but you completely dismiss all the racists and pedophile apologists on this forum, you even befriend those types.

you are a fucking loser, murdoch. 9 bans should have given you a hint already.

I don't dismiss racism or pedophilia.

But the man deserves a chance to defend himself against your accusations, yes?

 

[see4]

The gov. regulates the food industry, it doesn't control what restaurant owners put on their menus or the general workings of the business

Civil rights trump property rights (which is a moot point because property owners do not have the right to discriminate)

You can say this to him until you are blue in the face. He simply does not believe in that. He chooses to hold the same core values as racist bigots. He denies he is a racist bigot, but shares in their values. That's honestly worse than a racist bigot, because he's essentially a hypocritical racist bigot.

 

[Rob Roy]

I don't dismiss racism or pedophilia.

But the man deserves a chance to defend your accusations, yes?

Thank you for being reasonable. I think Uncle Buck may have inhaled a little too many dung fumes and has resorted to conflating recognition of something as approval of that same something. He seems more angry than usual tonite too.

 

[Rob Roy]

You can say this to him until you are blue in the face. He simply does not believe in that. He chooses to hold the same core values as racist bigots. He denies he is a racist bigot, but shares in their values. That's honestly worse than a racist bigot, because he's essentially a hypocritical racist bigot.

My core philosophy is one based in non harming.

Logically that leads to the idea that I have no right to make another person serve me or to violate their right to refuse interacting with me. How does that make me a racist?

Your core philosophy seems to reject that.

 

[see4]

My core philosophy is one based in non harming.

Logically that leads to the idea that I have no right to make another person serve me or to violate their right to refuse interacting with me. How does that make me a racist?

Your core philosophy seems to reject that.

Your philosophy only works in a Utopian society. Your philosophy is science fiction. Human nature can never be Utopian. There will never exist a time ever when we all "just get along". We therefore need rules, and we need "leaders" to sometimes "forcibly coerce" those who do not want to maintain civil society.

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh dear Poopy Pants you are forgetting the usurpation of what once private property being converted into something else by your beloved nanny state aren't you?

it's still private property. it can be either open to the public as a business or a private business. the owner controls that decision so that no one can force him to interact, aka be raped and made a slave by blacks and gays offering him money for his goods and services.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't dismiss racism or pedophilia.

But the man deserves a chance to defend himself against your accusations, yes?

good job, pedophile apologist. no wonder you are on your 9th sock puppet account.

 

[UncleBuck]

How does that make me a racist?

it's because you think it should be OK to harm others based upon their race.

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[Rob Roy]

it's because you think it should be OK to harm others based upon their race.

No I think it is okay for a person to chose how they will use their OWN property and their OWN body. That doesn't mean I would do as they do, it means I respect its not my call.

I don't think it is okay for others to make those choices for you under threat of violence. You do.

You are painted in a corner thug. You think making others do things if they want to be left alone is a -okay. Don't rapist use similar tactics? Thieves? Rampant floor shitters? Why yes they do.

 

[Rob Roy]

good job, pedophile apologist. no wonder you are on your 9th sock puppet account.

It was you that engaged in the heinous act with the bad man.

 

[UncleBuck]

You are painted in a corner thug.

for the seventh time, what is the most non-aggressive, peaceful way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color?

also, did allowing businesses to discriminate based on skin color cause harm to blacks? yes or no.

finally, does anyone have a right to cause harm? yes or no.

 

[UncleBuck]

It was you that engaged in the heinous act with the bad man.

are you talking about the act of paying a child for sex, which you called voluntary and consensual?

 

[TheHermit]

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.

I would say they are inversely correlated. Discrimination is always going to exist. It is human nature. However, I think that the law needs to side with the one being discriminated against and not the discriminator.

I will agree with your second point. Christians can be the victims of discrimination just as much as anyone else. Ironically, the perpetrators are often the same people who are against bigotry against Muslims, minorities and gays.

I really don't see this law as being about religion though. It just seems that religion is being used as an excuse for bigotry. If it was about religion, then shouldn't these businesses also want to ban adulterers, divorcees, people who eat pork, those who covet their neighbors, those who engage in usury, etc.

I also don't see how this law would be enforceable. Are business owners going to refuse service just because someone seems gay? I have met many effeminate straight men in my day, and also many gay men you couldn't pick out of a lineup. Where does it stop. What if Muslims don't want to serve Jews, or Protestants not wanting to serve Catholics, or Scientologists not wanting to serve Hindus. The whole concept seems stupid and has the potential to get out hand. Is the day going to come when I have to make sure all of my political and religious beliefs must match a shopkeeper before he will make me a sandwich?

 

[TheHermit]

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

Agreed. I have to deal with people that I would rather not over the course of my day. It is called being employed.